by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext
What the mainstream media is hiding
Kennedy launches research
Kennedy keeps his word: At the behest of the new US Secretary of Health and Human Services, he launches a large-scale study into whether vaccinations can cause autism – a connection that for decades was considered “long disproved.” Will the fears of vaccine skeptics be confirmed once independent scientists investigate them? 18 strong arguments support this.
As Kennedy announced in a cabinet meeting on April 10, the US government is now launching a “massive testing and research effort” to determine the causes of autism. Hundreds of scientists from around the world are involved. The investigation is expected to be completed by September. It is coordinated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest medical research funding agency, with an annual budget of approximately $50 billion.
Shortly before Kennedy’s announcement, Trump had pointed out the increase in autism among children in a speech to Congress. “Something’s not right,” he said. “So we’re going to find out what it is, and there’s no one better than Bobby.”
There’s no question that an explanation is needed. Until the 1960s, the disease was virtually unknown. In the early 1970s, it affected only one in 10,000 children in the United States, and by the end of the 1980s, it was one in 2,000. When the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting data in 2000, 1 in 250 children was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. By 2021, the rate had risen to 1 in 44; 2.27% of US eight-year-olds had autism. The latest statistics report from 2023 states that 1 in 36 eight-year-olds, or 2.8%, are affected. In the New York metropolitan area alone, diagnoses have increased by 500% since the turn of the millennium. The very latest CDC statistics, expected in mid-April, are expected to show a ratio of 1 in 31—with some communities even more severely affected.
Will this alarming increase continue? The autism rate could then exceed 7% by 2032. Perhaps one in ten Americans will be autistic by 2060. (1) A health emergency of unprecedented magnitude is looming, including in financial terms: Spending on medical care, support, and follow-up costs could rise to $5.5 trillion per year by 2060 and, in the worst case, to $7 trillion – each per year – in the US alone, according to a new study.
Is the catastrophe being brought about by vaccinations?
Since it became clear that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would use the power of his new office to pursue this sensitive issue, he has had to endure hurricane-force headwinds. Alleged links between vaccines and autism have long been debunked, the New York Times claims. Virtually all mainstream media outlets agree, from CNN and Time magazine to ABC News, Newsweek, USA Today, and the AP.
Kennedy sees things differently. “The studies they conducted were very, very limited,” he lamented in an interview with Fox News. “They conducted about 17 studies, and the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academies of Sciences, found that 14 of those studies were invalid. The biggest weakness of those studies is that they never compared vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, which is the only way to make that determination. But more importantly, none of the vaccines given to children in the first six months of life have ever been adequately studied.”
“It’s all about everything.”
However, Kennedy clarifies that the study will by no means focus exclusively on vaccines. “It’s about everything—our food system, our water, our air—we’re going to find out what’s driving this epidemic. We know it’s an environmental toxin that’s causing this catastrophe. Through research at the NIH, we’re going to find an answer to that question.”
The storm of outrage that’s engulfing Kennedy seems to leave him cold. His choice of study leader offers hope: It wasn’t a notorious pharmaceutical hire, a hired KOL (key opinion leader) of orthodox medical practitioners. Deaf to the outcry of “shocked experts,” Kennedy chose David Geier, co-author of several studies on the harms of thimerosal-containing vaccines—and, as a vaccine skeptic, certainly not affiliated with the pharmaceutical industry. (2) “My first thought was: Is this a hoax?” commented British “investigative journalist” Brian Deer, who achieved dubious fame by bringing down anti-vaccine doctor Andrew Wakefield. Geier, he said, “has no relevant qualifications. … He’s not qualified to express an opinion on these issues. (…) If you wanted to get someone off the street who would deliver the result Kennedy would like to see, this would be the right man.”
What does it say about a study when it is massively discredited before it has even begun? That interest groups that can direct character assassination via multimedia are extremely afraid of unpleasant results. Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher aptly comments: “The so-called ‘alarm’ is actually panic from institutions that are afraid of what a real, independent investigation might uncover. For the first time, the vaccine safety narrative is no longer completely controlled by Big Pharma and vaccine ideologues—they are afraid that their false religion of vaccine ideology will collapse.”
What suggests that the study could ultimately vindicate vaccine skeptics – to the horror of the pharmaceutical mafia?
Autism caused by vaccination? 18 strong arguments support it
1. It is by no means true that “science” has long since refuted the connection. The medical literature includes over 214 studies that confirm it (3) and 164 papers that found no connection. There is no trace of consensus. If there were, it wouldn’t be science. “To be clear: The work of science has nothing to do with consensus,” emphasizes American physician, author, and film producer Dr. Michael Crichton. “Consensus is the business of politics. In science, however, all you need is one researcher who happens to be right, which means they have results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What matters are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are so great precisely because they broke with consensus.”
2. The scientific quality of the 164 studies against the study is consistently pitiful. Most were commissioned by government agencies and/or with industry funding, conducted by researchers who received ample funding from pharmaceutical companies. In many cases, it later emerged that they had subsequently manipulated or swept under the rug their objectionable findings. They refused to release raw data, left inquiries unanswered and declined invitations to discussions. They consistently confirm the devastating finding of Stanford statistician John Ioannidis: “Most published research results are wrong.” Several review articles mercilessly dismantle the trivializing studies. (4)
3. Pro-study studies are inherently more credible because their authors do not profit from them. On the contrary, Those who arrive at objectionable results and publicly stand by them risk slander, the loss of research funding, ostracism by peers, and the end of their academic career. One of the world’s leading autism researchers, Dr. Richard Frye, reportedly confidentially admitted to author James Lyons-Weiler: “We all know that autism is caused by vaccines. It’s just that none of us is allowed to say so.”
4. The CDC itself, of all places, has already discovered facts that proved vaccine skeptics right – and covered them up. At every opportunity, it refers to the study published in 2004 under the direction of Frank DeStefano, then director of the CDC’s Office of Immunization Safety. (5) The study was designed to determine whether there is a connection between the age at which children receive their first MMR vaccination (measles, mumps, and rubella) and the diagnosis of autism in children. Using the CDC’s immunization registry in Atlanta, Georgia, 1,047 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were identified; they were compared with 1,007 unvaccinated control children. The age at first vaccination with MMR (18, 24, and 36 months ago) was examined. The published result: No significant difference in the age of first MMR vaccination between children with and without autism – there is no evidence that the risk of autism increases with earlier vaccination.
But the CDC committed massive fraud here. One of the co-authors, William Thompson, revealed that the opposite findings had actually been found in a subgroup, namely African-American boys. Thompson admitted this breach of professional ethics in a press release. CDC management had instructed him to destroy all evidence. (6)
5. The steady, explosive rise in the autism case curve followed two dramatic events. First, on November 14, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the fatal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which largely exempted vaccine manufacturers from product liability. (Note: This was preceded by a wave of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly due to side effects of the DPT vaccine (against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus). Faced with high damages and expensive litigation, many pharmaceutical companies threatened to withdraw from vaccine production.) Freed from this sword of Damocles, pharmaceutical companies recognized the vaccine business as a surefire gold mine.
Secondly, the CDC’s vaccination recommendations (“schedule”) became increasingly extensive. As recently as the 1970s, American children received only 5 to 7 vaccines—against DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), polio, measles, mumps, and rubella—spread over 10 to 15 doses. And today? Around 16 vaccines against 17 diseases, administered in around 70 doses, including booster and combination vaccines. In their very first year of life, American children received around 6 to 9 vaccine doses in 1980, and around 15 to 18 in 2000 – now it’s around 20 to 26. And this “shot” inflation is supposed to be medically safe?
6. Alternative explanations for the exploding number of cases are implausible. Changes in the genome? Genetic traits don’t multiply exponentially within two or three decades. Is the autism tsunami due to parents and doctors becoming more sensitive, paying attention to signs, and improved diagnostics being used? That certainly plays a role, but it by no means explains all the oddities.
7. Comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. If vaccines don’t cause autism, then the autism rate among parents who left their child unvaccinated should be identical to the autism rate among parents whose child was vaccinated as often as they wished. In the US, however, once a child is vaccinated, they have a 4.2 times higher risk of developing autism than an unvaccinated one. (7) Another study found 15 cases of autism among 894 patients who followed the CDC vaccination schedule – and zero cases among 561 unvaccinated individuals. (8)
It has been 16 years since a bill in the House of Representatives called on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – one of the world’s most important and largest medical research organizations, subordinate to the US Department of Health and Human Services – to finally compare vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The bill – HR 3069, introduced on June 26, 2009 – never left the committee.
8. The Amish. The Amish religious community, of which there are around 400,000 in the US – mainly in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana – does not vaccinate children for religious reasons. “I haven’t seen a single case of autism among the Amish,” asserts Dr. Frank Noonan, a family physician in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who has treated thousands of Amish people.
9. The dose/response relationship. The more frequently children are vaccinated, the higher their risk of autism.
10. The before/after conundrum. If vaccinations played no causal role, then autism symptoms would not occur more frequently after a vaccination than before. But that’s not the case. There isn’t a single case of a child becoming “autistic overnight” before a vaccination. On the other hand, tens of thousands of parents report that their child developed autism symptoms within 24 hours of a vaccination.
11. The “Overnight” Conundrum. Many parents report that their child’s behavior changed almost suddenly after the vaccination. (9) How can a child be completely normal the day before – and then show severe autism symptoms within a few hours? What, if not the “shot,” could have been the trigger? No environmental influence the child might otherwise be exposed to comes into question – it would have a much slower effect, if any.
12. The Triplet Conundrum. In a well-documented case, the McDowell family, triplets developed autism within a few hours of vaccination. How is this possible? Quite simple: They all received the same vaccine, the one against pneumococcus, from the same pediatrician on the same day, June 25, 2007, at 10 a.m. At the time, they were 9 months and 4 days old – perfectly healthy, happy, bright, and active, all of them. Just two hours after the “jab,” Clair was transformed as if blind and deaf. Around 2 p.m., the first boy, Richie, followed, and then Robbie in the evening. “No more giggling, no more smiling, no more babbling,” is how one reporter described her. “All their reflexes stopped. They stopped blinking, yawning, and sneezing. They never held hands again. They never looked at each other again.” A geneticist consulted by the distraught parents confirmed that it was entirely impossible for this synchronicity to be hereditary.
13. Country comparison. In Vietnam, autism was virtually unknown. Then the government introduced a particularly strict public vaccination program with high vaccination rates – and autism took off. A coincidence?
Even more shocking figures come from Japan. The annual incidence of ASD among children born in 1987 was 20 per 10,000. After the introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1990, it quadrupled to 85.9 per 10,000 for children born in 1990.
Worldwide research shows that the more extensively a country vaccinates, the more autism is prevalent. Doesn’t this clearly indicate causality?
14. Comparison of medical facilities. Doctors’ offices and clinics that vaccinate children less frequently or not at all report fewer or no cases of autism. Pediatrician Dr. Elizabeth Mumper reduced the incidence of autism in her practice by 10-fold by limiting the number of vaccinations administered.
One of the few pediatric clinics in the US that completely forgoes vaccinations is Homefirst Medical Services in Chicago. “We have cared for approximately 30,000 or 35,000 children over the years,” reported its founder and director, pediatrician Mayer Eisenstein, “but not a single case of autism in children who were delivered here and never vaccinated”—over a period of 47 years.
15. The VAERS evidence. Revealing details can be found in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the public reporting system for vaccine adverse reactions established by the CDC in 1990. If different vaccines are administered at the same time and in the exact numbers, they should trigger roughly the same number (or few) VAERS autism reports. But they don’t. Reporting rates depend on which vaccine is administered. This would be impossible if vaccines didn’t cause autism.
It has also been found that some vaccines have an initial peak in autism reports around days 8 and 9; Around the 15th to 30th day, they noticeably increase a second time. Such strong fluctuations are a clear indication of causality: If it were merely a coincidence, there would be a peak near the date of vaccination, and from then on, the curve would steadily decline.
Prize question: Which vaccines cause these peaks? They are the same ones that parents most frequently cite as the cause of autism.
16. Judicial ruling. Even the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Vaccine Court”) had to admit that vaccines can cause autism: a special court established in 1988 to deal exclusively with claims for damages from vaccine victims. It ruled in favor of the injured parties in the sensational cases of Hannah Poling and Porter Bridges. The evidence was overwhelming; no one ever challenged the ruling, and it became final.
17. Vaccines have been proven to cause permanent brain damage—why not those that cause autism? The most notable study confirming this danger dates back to 1998, written by CDC authors. (10) It was never questioned, never retracted, and cited by over 90 newspapers:
Methods. The medical records of children who met the inclusion criteria because they had received the first dose of these vaccines between 1970 and 1993 and who developed such encephalopathy without an identifiable cause within 15 days were identified and analyzed.
Results. A total of 48 children aged 10 to 49 months met the inclusion criteria after receiving a measles vaccine—alone or in combination. Eight children died; the remainder developed mental regression and retardation, chronic seizures, motor and sensory deficits, and movement disorders. The onset of neurological signs or symptoms occurred with a nonrandom, statistically significant distribution of cases on days 8 and 9. No cases were identified after the administration of the monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine.
Conclusions. This clustering suggests that there may be a causal relationship between measles vaccination and encephalopathy as a rare complication of measles vaccination.”
To this day, vaccines contain aluminum and mercury, whether as an adjuvant, as a preservative or as a contaminant from the manufacturing process. They cause brain damage. One study found consistently elevated aluminum levels in the brain tissue of autistic people. (11) “The aluminum content of childhood vaccines alone is absurdly high,” states Christopher Exley, professor of biochemistry, in his book Imagine You Are an Aluminum Atom (2020).
18. The Bradford/Hill criteria for causality are largely met.
Correlation does not prove causality, as is often and rightly said. That B follows A does not mean that A causes it. That’s true, of course—but is Kennedy’s thinking so simplistic? The hypothesis “vaccination causes autism” is supported by the fact that it largely meets the Bradford Hill criteria (12): nine principles that are intended to help medical research assess whether there is a correlation between a risk factor (e.g., smoking) and an observed health effect (e.g., exercise). They take their name from the British epidemiologist Austin Bradford Hill, who formulated them in 1965 in an essay that remains one of the most cited scientific works to this day. Here is an overview of his criteria:
1. Strength of association: The stronger the association, the more likely it is to be true. (Example: Smokers are much more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers.)
2. Consistency: Many studies show the same thing – in different countries, groups, and times. (Whether in Germany, the USA, or Japan – studies everywhere show that smoking increases the risk of cancer.)
3. Specificity: If a factor primarily has a specific effect, this indicates a relationship. (Smoking leads particularly frequently to lung cancer, but not to all possible other diseases to the same extent.)
4. Temporality: The cause precedes the effect. (Someone who starts smoking after being diagnosed with lung cancer cannot have caused the disease. The other way around, yes.)
5. Dose-response relationship (biological gradient): More of the cause = more of the effect. (Someone who smokes 30 cigarettes a day has a much higher risk of cancer than someone who only smokes 5.)
6. Plausibility: The relationship must make sense – it should fit with existing biological or medical knowledge. (Tobacco smoke contains carcinogenic substances. It is, therefore, biologically plausible that it causes cancer.)
7. Coherence: The relationship should fit with what else is known about the topic. (Lung cancer was rare before smoking became widespread. As more and more people smoked, the numbers rose. This fits together; it’s coherent.
8. Experimental confirmation: Causal relationships can ideally be proven through experiments, e.g., in intervention studies. (In countries where many people quit smoking, the cancer rate subsequently decreases. This shows that if you remove the cause, the effect also disappears, at least partially.)
9. Similarity to known relationships (analogy). If we already know that a similar substance or a similar situation has a certain effect, it stands to reason that this is also the case here. (If e-cigarettes also contain nicotine – just like traditional tobacco products – one can conclude by analogy that they too can be addictive.)
Bradford Hill didn’t understand his criteria as rigid rules but rather as guidelines. To assume causality, not all criteria need to be met – but the more criteria that apply, the more likely a causal relationship is.
How could even halfway-educated scientific people who care about the truth ignore all this evidence? How could so many brilliant researchers and so many highly respected institutes ignore it for decades? This is where “evidence-based” medicine has failed miserably. I can think of only one plausible explanation: They were all paid to look the other way. (13)
More than one cause – but vaccination is the decisive one.
Kennedy has claimed that autism is solely caused by vaccinations, and the CDC study he is now commissioning will not provide a one-way causal connection. Undoubtedly, other factors play a role.
These include environmental toxins such as lead, arsenic, and copper, even in baby food, as well as phthalates, which are often used as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other plastics, such as flooring, children’s toys, and rubber products. (14)
High levels of air pollution (15) also increase the risk of autism – proven, for example, in prenatal exposure to ozone. (16)
Drugs are also suspected. As several studies show, expectant mothers who take paracetamol increase their offspring’s risk of autism by up to 214% (17) – and even more if they give it to babies and toddlers. Pregnant women who take antidepressants double their unborn child’s risk of autism, as the University of Montreal discovered when analyzing data from over 145,000 women. (18) Even medication residues in drinking water have been suspected of promoting autism.
Numerous studies indicate that pesticides also play a significant role. Researchers at the University of Los Angeles examined nearly 3,000 ASD patients born between 1998 and 2010 in California’s Central Valley, a predominantly agricultural valley 600 km long north of San Francisco. For comparison, they included 35,000 test subjects who grew up there without a diagnosis of autism. Using California’s Pesticide Use Registry, the scientists analyzed which study participants were exposed to at least one of eleven common pesticides before birth and during childhood. This group showed a 10% increased likelihood of autism. The prime suspect is the ubiquitous glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup.
Boys are four times more likely to be affected by autism than girls. This “gender gap” indicates that genetic factors contribute to the extent of damage caused by toxins. Is ASD “largely genetic”? This is the argument of those who downplay the issue, seeking to deflect attention. One could just as easily attribute lung cancer in heavy smokers primarily to an unfavorable genetic makeup. If the genetic lottery had endowed every nicotine addict with an immune system as fabulous as the legendary chain smoker Helmut Schmidt, wouldn’t smoker’s cancer then be extremely rare? Incidentally, as already mentioned, genetic changes do not cause mass illness within a few decades. “Epidemics are not caused by genes,” says Kennedy. “Even if there may be a genetic susceptibility, there must also be an environmental toxin.”
Truly, 2025 will be a fascinating year for research.
(Harald Wiesendanger)
Notes
(1) Siehe https://www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/_files/ugd/adf864_231644ca239249dc9ac579b5d332d872.pdf, S. 238. Näheres im KLARTEXT “Dieser Tsunami wird Billionen kosten” und “Autismus-Seuche – Big Pharma frohlockt”.
(2) Siehe u.a. https://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/2047-9158-2-25.pdf; Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Brian Hooker: Geimpft versus ungeimpft – Jetzt spricht die Wissenschaft, Rottenburg 2023, S. 67 ff.
(3) Hier die Liste zum Download: https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/214-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link Eine kürzere Liste mit 30 Schlüsselarbeiten: https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/30-scientific-studies-showing-the-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/. Darüber hinaus führen inzwischen 400 Arbeiten vor Augen, wie gefährlich die Impfstoffe im allgemeinen sind. Siehe Neil Z. Miller: Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers. https://www.amazon.com/Millers-Review-Critical-Vaccine-Studies/dp/188121740X/ref=sr_1_1
(4) Siehe z.B. SafeMinds: “Vaccines and Autism – What do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us? “; Jerry Hammond: “Why the Claim ‘Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism’ Is Disinformation“.
(5) Frank DeStefano u.a.: “Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta, “Pediatrics 2004.
(6) Näheres über diesen Skandal in Kennedy/Hooker: Geimpft versus ungeimpft, a.a.O., S. S. 81 ff.
(7) Anthony Mawson u.a.: “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-Year Old US Children “, Journal of Translational Sciences 2017.
(8) James Lyons-Weiler/Paul Thomas: „Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination“ (2020), siehe auch https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/12/ten-year-study-unvaccinated-children-far-healthier-than-their-vaccinated-peers/ Warum diese Studie mittlerweile zurückgezogen werden musste, versteht nur, wer um die lukrative Pharmanähe medizinischer Fachzeitschriften weiß.
(9) Siehe diesen Tweet für eine Diskussion des Phänomens.
(10) Robert E. Weibel/Vito Caserta/David E. Benor/Geoffrey Evans: “Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program “, Pediatrics (1998) 101 (3): 383–387, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.101.3.383, https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/101/3/383/61917/Acute-Encephalopathy-Followed-by-Permanent-Brain?redirectedFrom=fulltexthttps://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/101/3/383/61917/Acute-Encephalopathy-Followed-by-Permanent-Brain
(11) Siehe den tragischen Fall von Sawyer im KLARTEXT “Damit sein Tod nicht sinnlos war”.
(12) Austin Bradford Hill: “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? “Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58 (5) 1965, S. 295–300, PMC 1898525
(13) Näheres in Harald Wiesendanger: Das GesundheitsUNwesen – Wie wir es durchschauen, überleben und verwandeln (2019).
(14) Malin Larsson u.a.: “Associations between indoor environmental factors and parental-reported autistic spectrum disorders in children 6–8 years of age”, NeuroToxikology 30 (5) September 2009, S. 822–831, https://translate.google.com/website?sl=en&tl=de&hl=en&u=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom%3Dpubmed%26retmode%3Dref%26cmd%3Dprlinks%26id%3D19822263
(15) https://www-naturalnews-com.translate.goog/2019-05-06-studies-determine-link-between-air-pollution-autism-risk.html?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=en ; https://www-naturalnews-com.translate.goog/019470_Autism_air_pollution.html?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=en
(16) Umweltgesundheitsperspektive 121 (3) März 2013, S. 380-386. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1205827. Epub 18. Dezember 2012, https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.translate.goog/23249813/
(17) JAMA Psychiatry 30. Oktober 2019 DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3259, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31664451/
(18) https://www.deutsche-apotheker-zeitung.de/daz-az/2016/daz-4-2016/autismus-durch-antidepressiva; https://www.zentrum-der-gesundheit.de/krankheiten/weitere-erkrankungen/autismus-uebersicht/autismus-antidepressiva