WHAT WAS CONCLUDED IN THE HISTORICAL REVIEWS OF THIMEROSAL IN VACCINES? 

Let’s proceed to a careful evaluation of a historical timeline focused on the reviews of thimerosal in vaccines (from the CDC’s own website), beginning in 1999. First, on July 7th, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service issued a joint statement that said that (quote) “There is no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule.” The American Academy of Family Physicians issues a comparable statement soon after. In October of the same year, the ACIP of that period reviewed information about thimerosal in vaccines provided by CDC’s National Immunization Program (and several vaccine manufacturers) regarding the availability of vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative – and although it is not clear what ACIP concluded, in November 1999, the CDC (which provides information to ACIP) stated that vaccine manufacturers, the FDA, and other agencies are working together to reduce the amount of thimerosal in vaccines, or to replace them with thimerosal-free vaccines, as soon as possible – which carried an implicit concession of there being a problem with thimerosal in vaccines.

But, then the FDA reviewed the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines and allegedly found no evidence of harm. BUT as a precautionary measure, the FDA also recommended removing thimerosal from vaccines routinely given to infants – which is a contradictory measure: in that why would the FDA recommend the removal of thimerosal if its review process found it not to be harmful?

Then, in the year 2000, despite claims that thimerosal was not an issue, fifty-one vaccine and vaccine safety researchers and experts met in Atlanta, GA to review data regarding thimerosal in vaccines and nervous system disorders. A report summarising the meeting was then presented to ACIP. In the following year, being 2001, in the month of May, a risk assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a preservative, other than redness and swelling at the injection site. In October of the same year, the Institute of Medicine (or IOM’s) Immunization Safety Review Committee issued a report concluding there is not enough evidence to disprove claims that thimerosal in childhood vaccines causes autism, attention deficit hypersensitivity disorder, or speech or language delay.

BUT, and this is very crucial to note: in the year 2001, except for influenza (or flu), thimerosal was removed from or reduced in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and under manufactured for the US market. And so once again we arrive at a contradiction: despite the alleged safety of thimerosal and despite the alleged inconclusiveness of evidence proving claims of harm from thimerosal, the US government in the year 2001 removed it in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and under, specifically those manufactured for the US market, by the way – which means they kept it in the vaccines that were exported. Well, here is what settles the contradiction: In 2001, the Director of the FDA Office of Vaccine Research and Review, William Egan, admitted under oath Mercury (thimerosal) was actually never tested for Safety in human beings. In other words, the US government did not have scientific evidence to justify the use of thimerosal in products ingested by people. Here’s an excerpt from William Egan;s testimony under oath.

Additionally, RFK Jr explained how the US government did NOT actually remove mercury from all vaccines, but instead just moved it around, while also leaving it in vaccines that many other countries in the world are still getting, especially the third world countries – as we’ve just alluded to.

THE COVER-UP OF THE LINK BETWEEN THIMEROSAL AND AUTISM

Let’s continue to evaluate the timeline on the discourse on thimerosal in vaccines, and when we proceed from the year 2003. Starting in January, the last children’s vaccines that use thimerosal as a preservative expired in this month. Then, in August, another study looked for a link between autism incidence and the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines. The study alleged not to find a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in Denmark and Sweden, where autism rates continued to increase although thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 1992. And in November of the same year, a study found no consistent significant associations between exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and a variety of kidney, nervous system, and developmental problems.

Fast forward to the year 2004, and after reviewing what was said to be over 200 scientific studies that examined thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, the IOM concludes in a report that the studies “consistently provided evidence of no association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.” Also in 2004, the ACIP recommended that children between the ages of 6 and 23 months routinely receive an inactivated influenza (flu) vaccine. However, the ACIP did not recommend using the thimerosal-free flu vaccine over the thimerosal-containing flu vaccine, while simultaneously claiming that the benefits of flu vaccination outweigh any risk from thimerosal exposure.

Following this, in the year 2006, in a statement prepared for the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs, the FDA concluded that the evidence reviewed by the IOM in 2004 does not support an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Similarly, in 2007, the CDC issued a statement on autism and thimerosal that states in part that (quote) “Some people believe increased exposure to thimerosal (from the addition of important vaccines recommended for children) explains the higher prevalence [of autism] in recent years. However, evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association.” (end quote). Well, later that year, results of a CDC study proceeded not to support an association between early exposure to thimerosal in vaccines and neuropsychological problems in children between the ages of 7 and 10 years.

This brings to the year 2009. During this year, results of an Italian study stated that immunisation in infancy with thimerosal-containing vaccines does not decrease neuropsychological performance later in childhood. And then finally in 2010, results of a CDC study did not support an association between prenatal and infant exposure to vaccines and immuno-globulins that contain thimerosal and an increased risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). [PAUSE] Now, this is an all-too convenient shift. The CDC, ACIP and FDA, went from not recommending and stopping the production of vaccines that contained thimerosal to not finding a problem with them at all. So, what changed?

Well, it turns out that almost 25 years ago, agencies from around the world met with one another in Georgia and conspired to remove critical data linking thimerosal in vaccines to autism. They never thought they would be found out, and so they lied about vaccines then – which certainly should make you think that they would do the same now.

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE IS IMPLICATED IN THE HENRY FORD STUDY

Now, you would have noted that the Institute of Medicine came up often in the evaluation of the timeline of thimerosal discourse. For additional clarity, the “Institute of Medicine” (most commonly refers to the former name of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) in the United States, and it is a non-governmental, non-profit organisation founded in 1970 that is known for providing what is said to be independent, objective advice on health and medicine. Well, interestingly, whether intentionally or inadvertently, the IOM is involved in the development of the Henry Ford Study that proved vaccine harms in children who were vaccinated, in comparison to those who were not.

This includes, that those children who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness; specifically 329% more asthma, 203% more atopic disease, 496% more autoimmune disease, 453% more neurodevelopmental disorders, 228% more developmental delays, and 347% more speech disorders.

Now, how the IOM became part of this is that the lead investigator in the Henry Ford study and his colleagues agreed to perform a comprehensive comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children using the health system’s electronic medical records because FOR YEARS, the Institute of Medicine had urged the CDC to conduct such a study using its Vaccine Safety Datalink, but the CDC never did. Therefore, in a comical twist of irony, the institute that has stood behind agencies like the CDC and FDA and they claimed a lack of evidence for the harms of thimerosal, was the reason a study that proved the harms for vaccines took place.

THE HARMFUL NATURE OF THIMEROSAL, AND WHY IT IS DANGEROUS IN VACCINES

Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study. Methylmercury is the type of mercury found in certain kinds of fish. At high exposure levels methylmercury can be toxic to people. In the United States, federal guidelines keep as much methylmercury as possible out of the environment and food, but over a lifetime, everyone is exposed to some methylmercury.

At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose. For comparison, this is roughly the same amount of elemental mercury contained in a 3 ounce can of tuna fish.

BEYOND MERCURY, METALS IN VACCINES IN GENERAL ARE A HEALTH CONCERN

But, in addition, beyond mercury itself, metals in vaccines (in general) are actually a massive health concern. You’d recall that we’ve discussed here on The War Room that Dr Toby Rogers PhD even exposed the fact that the FDA and CDC approved aluminum as ‘safe & effective’ in vaccines, based on a study of only 4 rabbits that was riddled with issues – and yet, this is the study that the FDA and CDC rely on. In this study, they promptly lost the results from one of the rabbits. So the study is actually based on just 3 rabbits. But, the results in the rabbits were nevertheless of great concern.

In essence, the rabbits were killed after 28 days and the Aluminum Adjuvants are still there. At the endpoint, Aluminum retention in the body and organs was 94% for Aluminum Hydroxide and 78% for Aluminum Phosphate. The theory and narrative told by the FDA and CDC has always been that the body excretes the Aluminum through the urine and is therefore harmless. BUT, Dr Toby Rogers explained that nothing could be further from the truth. Injected heavy metals actually stay in the places in the body you would expect, which include the kidneys, the liver, the heart, the lymph nodes, the bone marrow and  the brain.” 

And so, clearly the study by the CDC and the FDA was terrible to begin with but also produced results that were concerning. BUT, despite this, the FDA and CDC declared the presence of metals in vaccines to be safe and effective. It is beyond absurd because the science is so terribly bad that anybody who reads that study would not want to inject their children with Aluminum Adjuvanted vaccines. And that’s just one ingredient amongst hundreds in these vaccines, as far as metals are concerned. Here’s more from Dr Toby Rogers.

Meanwhile, five studies have linked aluminum-containing vaccines to asthma, autism, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In more detail, the CDC-funded study titled, Association Between Aluminum Exposure From Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months, which was published in the journal Academic Pediatrics, analyzed data from 326,991 children in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Researchers calculated cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccines before 24 months of age and assessed its association with persistent asthma diagnosed between ages 2 and 5. Key covariates were adjusted, including sex, race, eczema, prematurity, medical complexity, and healthcare utilisation.

Well, Here’s what they found: (1) First, they found a strong dose-dependent relationship: Each additional 1 mg of vaccine-derived aluminum increased the risk of persistent asthma by: more than 26% in children with eczema, and more than 19% in children without eczema. In addition, Children receiving more than 3.0 mg of aluminum had significantly higher asthma risk compared to those receiving less or equal to 3.0 mg. There was more than a 61%asthma risk in children with eczema, and more than 36% in children without eczema. The association held across multiple sensitivity analyses, including when excluding extreme exposures and limiting to fully vaccinated children.

Then, similarly, brain tissue analyses, population-level data, and experimental evidence indicate neurotoxin aluminum vaccine adjuvants are strongly linked to autism.

A study by Boretti found that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines is a plausible explanation for autism based on ecological studies, animal models, brain tissue analysis, and biological mechanisms. In addition, a study by Tom-ljenovic & Shaw found that a strong correlation exists between increased aluminum adjuvant exposure and the rise in ASD prevalence over two decades.

And both these studies are not hot, or controversial, considering that aluminum is an inflammatory and neurotoxic vaccine adjuvant, and when injected into mice was found to rapidly trigger symptoms similar to those observed in neurological developmental disorders. Similarly, the neurotoxicity of mercury, the tendency of autistic individuals to have elevated mercury exposures, and autistic individuals having difficulty detoxifying mercury.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

CONTEXTUALISATION: THE SEPTEMBER 22ND ANNOUNCEMENT

 “The US HHS’s Doubledown on Acetaminophen (or Tylenol)”, and we ought to begin with some contextualisation, looking at the announcement on the 22nd of September. Well, speaking from the Roosevelt Room, President Donald Trump and US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr announced bold new actions to confront the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) epidemic in America, which has surged nearly 400% since 2000 and now affects 1 in 31 American children.

First, the US Food and Drug Administration (or the FDA) will act on a potential treatment for speech-related deficits associated with ASD. The FDA is publishing a Federal Register notice outlining a label update for leucovorin for cerebral folate deficiency, which has been associated with autism. This action establishes the first FDA-recognised therapeutic for children with cerebral folate deficiency and autistic symptoms.  The change will essentially authorise treatment for children with ASD, with continued use if children show language, social, or adaptive gains. Following the label update for ASD, state Medicaid programs will be able to cover leucovorin for the indication of ASD, in partnership with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Finally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will launch confirmatory trials and new research into the impact of leucovorin including safety studies.

Now, it is very key to note that leucovorin is not a cure for ASD and may only lead to improvements in speech-related deficits for a subset of children with ASD. In addition, leucovorin would have to be administered under close medical supervision and in conjunction with other non-pharmacological approaches for children with ASD (e.g., behavioral therapy).

Then the second point of contextualisation to highlight from the announcement on the 22nd of September is that HHS stated that it will also act on acetaminophen. In essence, the FDA responsibility was to issue a physician notice and begin the process to initiate a safety label change for acetaminophen (or Tylenol and similar products). HHS would also have the responsibility of launching a nationwide public service campaign to inform families and protect public health.

TRUMP OPPOSES HEPATITIS B VACCINE FOR BABIES, & WARNS OF METALS IN VACCINES

Now one of the striking details mentioned by prescient Trump in the course of the tylenol-autism link announcement is that he questioned the rationale of giving an infant a Hepatitis B vaccine, as well the many dangerous metals, like aluminium and mercury in vaccines. Now, he proceeds to advocate for spacing out vaccines, as opposed to eradicating them in their entirety, which is not as fundamentalist and accurate a response to vaccines as I would argue is necessary. However, his remarks are considered in the context of a world and American society where people still have the freedom to exercise the choice to take a vaccine even when they are told about their harms. But, I am hoping to see and praying for this more fundamentalist and emphatically anti-vaccine approach to become more intrinsic to US health policy, because, we have spent a lot of time challenging the rationale behind vaccine science, and also disproving their claimed efficacy (including here on The War Room, and LN24 International at large) for us not to advocate for progressing towards a direct refutation of the necessity or plausibility of vaccines.

Nevertheless, here is why it still matters that Trump is perhaps the first president in US and world history to raise concerns about the Hepatitis B vaccines of the first day out of the womb, and also the presence of metals like aluminium and mercury in vaccines. First, central to the vaccine agenda and hoax, as far as it relates to children, is the idea that the many vaccines that parents are being compelled to allow for their children are somehow necessary. Following his rationale, within hours or when a child is born, a child is subjected to pharmaceutical intervention: more specifically, a new newborn’s eyes are smeared with erythro-mycin ointment, and a newborn is given the Hepatitis B shot.

However, erythromycin ointment is to prevent gonorrhoea or chlamydia infections of the eyes; and so, why would a newborn need this if the mother does not have these sexually transmitted illnesses? Furthermore, Hepatitis B is also a sexually transmitted disease, and from IV drug abusers, and so why would a newborn need this if parents are healthy and do not have Hepatitis B? Especially since parents are tested for these illnesses! In essence, the logic behind the alleged necessity of these interventions is really about treating newborns for illnesses they do NOT have – because there is literally nothing causal and therefore expressly necessary that would warrant these pharmaceutical interventions. Therefore, in questioning the rationale behind giving newborns the Hepatitis B jab, President Trump is exposing the deceptive reasoning behind it, and subsequently disrupting the vaccine enterprise’s profit stream that is built on the backs of babies.

Secondly, metals in vaccines are actually a massive health concern. Dr Toby Rogers PhD exposed the fact that the FDA and CDC approved aluminum as ‘safe & effective’ in vaccines, based on a study of only 4 rabbits that was riddled with issues – and yet, this is the study that the FDA and CDC rely on. In this study, they promptly lost the results from one of the rabbits. So the study is actually based on just 3 rabbits. But, the results in the rabbits were nevertheless of great concern.

In essence, the rabbits were killed after 28 days and the Aluminum Adjuvants are still there. At the endpoint, Aluminum retention in the body and organs was 94% for Aluminum Hydroxide and 78% for Aluminum Phosphate. The theory and narrative told by the FDA and CDC has always been that the body excretes the Aluminum through the urine and is therefore harmless. BUT, Dr Toby Rogers explained that nothing could be further from the truth. Injected heavy metals actually stay in the places in the body you would expect, which include the kidneys, the liver, the heart, the lymph nodes, the bone marrow and  the brain.”

And so, clearly the study by the CDC and the FDA was terrible to begin with but also produced results that were concerning. BUT, despite this, the FDA and CDC declared the presence of metals in vaccines to be safe and effective. It is beyond absurd because the science is so terribly bad that anybody who reads that study would not want to inject their children with Aluminum Adjuvanted vaccines. And that’s just one ingredient amongst hundreds in these vaccines, as far as metals are concerned. Here’s more from Dr Toby Rogers.

RFK JR: TYLENOL NOT JUST LINKED TO AUTISM, BUT ALSO ADHD AND LIVER TOXICITY

Then, in a recent announcement this month of October, and in doubling down on the tylenol issue, Secretary Kennedy announced that Tylenol is NOT just linked to autism but also ADHD and liver toxicity in children. Let’s kindly revisit that moment.

THE POINT OF CONTENTION: IS ACETAMINOPHEN A CAUSE OR DRIVER OF AUTISM?

So, all that we’ve discussed and heard thus far contextualises the contribution from the White house as far as tylenol (and vaccines) are concerned. Which then brings us to the point of contention. Now, for clarity, what is NOT the point of contention (at least for the purpose of our discussion is that the FDA recognises that acetaminophen is often treated as the only tool (or most recommended tool) for fevers and pain in pregnancy, as other alternatives (e.g., NSAIDs) have well documented adverse effects; which is why the FDA is also partnering with manufacturers to update labeling and drive new research to safeguard mothers, children, and families – this is not the point of contention we will focus on, because acetaminophen certainly has health risks (which we will highlight as we proceed), and these are health risks that do not warrant a defence, and rather necessitate a shift away from a reliance on pharmaceutical drugs as a means of pain or fever relief – especially in young children.

Then, what IS a point of contention that we ought to address for the purpose of our discussion, looking at the The US HHS’s Doubledown on Acetaminophen (or Tylenol) is one that began with a crucial concession from the White House concerning acetaminophen, and it is that the FDA recognises that there are contrary studies showing no association between acetaminophen and autism.  Thus, given the conflicting literature and lack of clear causal evidence, the HHS stated on the 22nd of September that it wants to encourage clinicians to exercise their best judgment in use of acetaminophen. As such, the point of contention lies with the conflicting literature, and this is precisely what we’ll talk about, by asking the question of whether acetaminophen is a root cause of driver in the autism or neurodevelopmental health issue discussion.

To begin our focus on this point of contention, I’d like to prove not only that tylenol had already been a focus in the autism debate years before the announcement from the White house in September, but I’d also like to prove that the studies even years back were showing that tylenol played the role of increasing chances of autism after vaccination, as opposed to being a primary cause itself. Kindly watch this excerpt from a 2023 interview conducted by the Children’s Health Defence.

Once again, President Trump raised the alarm about the dramatically rising prevalence of autism, and he emphasised that it must be caused by something in the environment. He mentioned acetaminophen and hyper-vaccination as prime suspects. Now, while president Trump and HHS Secretary also spoke about the suspect of large vaccine bundles administered to infants, their medical advisors (which include Drs Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, Mehmet Oz, and Dorothy Fink) focused their remarks exclusively on Tylenol, and almost did not mention vaccines.

But, here is what I’d like for us to collectively reconsider. First, there have been studies that examined Tylenol among the potential causes of autism, including studies by the McCullough Foundation, led by Dr Peter McCullough, who is among the people at the forefront of performing an exhaustive investigation of autism. These studies have found little evidence to warrant regarding Tylenol as a prime suspect in autism causation. In fact, it would seem that interest in the purported Tylenol-Autism link has recently been piqued within the same institutions that have long vehemently denied that autism is linked to childhood vaccination.

Thus, the totality of circumstances suggests that Tylenol is more of a red-herring than a true suspect. Now, this is not to say that tylenol is an exceptional pharmaceutical product, rather, it is to say that studies do not support it emerging as a primary cause of autism. In fact, I find it interesting that the recent study pointing to Tylenol is from Havard – the same institution that brought us the brain death definition to cover up for the disastrous second heart transplant that took place in Brooklyn, New York; and has resulted in the murder of many patients who are claimed to have been so-called brain dead.

Secondly, since it became a widely used, over-the-counter drug in 1960, Tylenol has been the only recommended medicine for relieving pain and reducing fever in pregnant women and infants. Generation X (which are those born between 1965-1980) was exposed to Tylenol in utero, and their  mothers often gave it to them to lower their fevers from frequent earaches. And yet, in a 1970 birth cohort, autism was virtually unknown. BY CONTRAST, the trend of dramatically increasing autism began in the late eighties, following the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This Act granted liability protection to vaccine manufacturers, which was followed by a rapid proliferation of the number of shots on the childhood schedule.

So, what does this mean? I think it means that tylenol – at best – is a driver (or worsening agent) of neurodevelopmental issues, but not the root cause. Let’s begin with Prenatal Exposure. The most comprehensive review to date, by Prada et al, evaluated tylenol use during pregnancy: 27 studies found a positive association with neurodevelopmental disorders (in particular ASD/ADHD). Then, 9 studies showed no link, while 4 studies suggested protective effects. But, we also ought to consider that autism was never or rarely ever diagnosed at birth. In every study, it emerged years later—typically ages 2–8, the very same window when children are loaded with many vaccines. Meanwhile, none of these papers we referenced accounted for vaccination as a confounder. This shows prenatal Tylenol exposure may predispose children, but the neurological injuries are detected during the vaccine years.

Similarly, when we look at Postnatal Exposure to tylenol, a study by Schultz et al (in 2008) found that children given Tylenol after MMR vaccination were about six times more likely to later be diagnosed with autism. In those who regressed (meaning who lost previously acquired skills), the risk was nearly fourfold, and in those with clear post-vaccine complications, the risk spiked to over eightfold. By contrast, ibuprofen showed no association. In addition, Yengst et al (in a 2025 study) found that in a Medicaid cohort of over 674,000 children, repeated episodes of fever, ear infections, or other “Tylenol-triggering” illnesses were linked to a two and a half-fold higher risk of autism. Among girls with multiple fevers, the risk climbed to nearly fourfold.

Taken together, these studies reveal a consistent pattern: which is that autism risk intensifies in the post-vaccine period, when febrile reactions are most common, and tylenol use in this context may amplify the likelihood of developmental regression. This is considering that tylenol depletes what is called gluta-thione, and this is the body’s master antioxidant/detox system, exactly when the brain faces inflammatory/oxidative stress (such as fever, seizures, or immune activation). Now, some pediatric practices have actually recommended Tylenol before vaccine visits “just in case,” meaning that children who take tylenol before shots arrive with defenses already depleted as the shots provoke fever/immune activation—thus priming the children for worse outcomes. Ergo, tylon is a driver (or worsening agent) but not the cause of neurodevelopmental issues.

CONTRASTING THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE SCHEDULE WITH TYLENON IN THE CAUSATION DISCOURSE

So, that is what studies reflect concerning tylenol’s capacity as a root cause in neurodevelopmental issues – and especially autism. Let’s proceed to contrast this with the childhood vaccine schedule. You’d recall that on the 9th of September, attorney Aaron Siri testified before the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations during the hearing titled: “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines.” In his sworn testimony, Siri revealed the results of a long-hidden study from the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, MI. This is the largest vaccinated vs unvaccinated birth cohort study ever conducted in the United States (looking at 18,468 participants). Children were tracked from birth over a 10-year period. The data were drawn directly from electronic medical records — the gold standard for real-world health outcomes.

The study’s official title is (quote): “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short- and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study.” The measures and outcomes of this study come directly from the testimony of Aaron Siri, who presented these findings under oath in the US Senate, as unfortunately, the study is not yet publicly available (again, considering that it was largely hidden for the longest time).

The key findings from the Henry Ford Health System study found that, compared to unvaccinated children, those who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness; specifically 329% more asthma, 203% more atopic disease, 496% more autoimmune disease, 453% more neurodevelopmental disorders, 228% more developmental delays, and 347% more speech disorders. In light of these findings, Aaron Siri testified that all of these findings were statistically significant. And even more striking is that, in conditions where unvaccinated children had zero cases (and this is looking at conditions like brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics), there were hundreds of cases among the vaccinated group!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

 So, in the early 1980s, vaccines were so harmful that vaccine manufacturers routinely lost in court. They lobbied the US Congress to pass the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to give themselves liability protection. And they promised to make vaccines safer but there was no legal mechanism in the bill to enforce that promise so they never did.

Pharmaceutical companies proceeded to add as many vaccines as possible to the schedule. Prior to 1986, there were 3 routine vaccines totaling 7 injections. Today the CDC’s Maternal and Child and Adolescent vaccine schedules include 19 vaccines requiring 76 injections with 94 total doses of antigen (I’m actually less worried about the antigens than the other ingredients in the shots).

Meanwhile, no one in a position of authority bothered to measure the impact of the growing vaccine schedule on the health of children. Most regulators were auditioning for a job with Pharma because that’s where the money was said to be. Politicians also depend on Pharma donations for their re-election campaigns. While the mainstream news media get most of their revenue from Pharma advertising so they were never going to bite the hand that feeds them. And so, ultimately, big pharma invested heavily in public relations to lay siege to any remaining pockets of resistance.

Now, during this time, mercury (also known as thimerosal) was grandfathered in as “Generally Recognized As Safe” (or GRAS by the FDA) because it was easier to do that than actual safety testing. Aluminum adjuvants were allowed with only minimal safety testing — which included 1 man, 3 rabbits, and ever-moving goal posts on what constitutes “safe”. And so, the gold rush was on so vaccine manufacturers were free to add whatever they wanted to vaccines and they would all be approved because the regulators and the medical industry were captured by big pharma.

It was against this backdrop and historical context that the autism rate skyrocketed in the 1990s and has continued to increase ever since. At the same time, rates of life-threatening allergies, autoimmune disorders, asthma, childhood cancers, diabetes, and epilepsy soared too and those are probably vaccine injuries as well. But autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is more costly than those other conditions because it’s a lifelong disability with no known effective natural treatment (while some parents have been able to recover their children through holistic and alternative therapies but the percentage who are successful in doing so is still in the single digits). And so, in the US alone, the country went from having autism rates of 1 in 10 000 in the 1970s, to 1 in 31 in 2025. All of this correlates with the amount of vaccines that have been progressively added into the immunisation schedule.

And yet, autism is characterised as merely a mental disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (or DSM-5), which is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States – as OPPOSED to a vaccine injury. Here’s why, and what is progressively being done about it.

Now, what Nicole Shanahan just outlined is the problem with autism exclusively being defined as a mental disorder and what is being done to bypass that and establish a link between vaccines and autism. But, at the point when the correlation between vaccines and autism was becoming undeniable, the people who created the autism epidemic had no interest in conceding to wrongful conduct, and instead delayed progress in curbing autism rates by pretending to look for the cause, when they already knew it. But (of course) they also had to make sure never to “find” the actual cause because then the flow of research funding would stop and lots of these doctors and scientists would go to jail for their culpability in vaccine injuries. And so,  an entire industry was created to cover up the autism epidemic!

AN INDUSTRY WAS CREATED TO COVER UP THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC, STARTING WITH BOGUS STUDIES

To begin with, this industry focused on overwhelming academia and society with bogus studies. In fact, Since 2000, more than twenty scientific studies have concluded that there is no association between vaccines and autism. The most widely cited studies are: the Fombonne and Chakrabarti study (from 2001); Madsen et al. (2002; and 2003); Makela, Nuorti, and Peltola (also in 2002); Smeeth et al. (2004); Honda, Shimizu, and Rutter, (2005); Schechter and Grether (2008); and even Tozzi et al (2009) – and this is not even all of them. But the idea is to show that these were supposedly studies from varied authorities, covering a broad scope of research.

BUT… most of these are studies that claim no association between MMR or thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, which is odd because the CDC’s own internal research shows that both of these types of vaccines do indeed cause autism. You find this in the statement from William Thompson and 2014, and the SafeMinds analysis of FOIA documents that were obtained from former CDC researcher turned GSK executive Thomas Verstraeten.

Doubling down on the blowing the whistle in bogus studies, Pediatrician Dr Joel “Gator” Warsh says the Science is NOT settled on vaccines and autism – despite the so-called research. He adds that when you go look at it, the research is literally just on MMR and thimerosal… but, you cannot make a claim about vaccines and autism when you have NOT studied all the vaccines in the first year together, and you haven’t studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. And before we view the video excerpt, I’d like to kindly ask that you pardon the alcohol analogy, and extrapolate the broader principle in the discussion, about the fallacious nature of how autism studies were conducted.

That said, there have also been studies that com[ared the state of health between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children, including cases like the McDowell triplets. And so, there is a growing body of empirical evidence that not only disproves bogus studies claiming there is no causal link between autism and vaccines, but studies that also detail the actual causal link.

MEANWHILE, STUDIES ALREADY DISPROVED “GENES” AS THE LIKELY CAUSE FOR AUTISM

Perhaps one of the most aggravating discussions on the cause for autism is that on genetics (as we’ve discussed on previous occasions here on ‘The War Room’). And it is aggravating because in pretending to study the cause, big pharma and its collaborators went as far as to point the blame for autism on genetics – thus implicating parents as the potential originator of a gene that has caused their children a neurological challenge. Conveniently though, what is left out by vaccine manufacturers in this narrative is how the autism causing gene would have gotten to the parent in the first place – seeing that autism was not always part of the infirmities observed in society, in the same way cancer was not always part of the infirmities observed in society.

ANd o, you can imagine my excitement when I found that In 2011, a comprehensive study of twins and autism showed that autism is not primarily a genetic disorder… AND YET, this appears to have made no difference in the trajectory of the industry and perceptions on autism. In more detail, in the early 2000s, as the autism rate soared, political leaders in California wanted to better understand what was happening. So California contracted with sixteen of the best geneticists in the US and gave them access to all birth records in the state. They produced a study titled “Genetic heritability and shared environmental factors among twin pairs with autism” (and this study was conducted by Hallmayer et al., in 2011) and it is the most comprehensive study of twins and autism to date. They found that genetic heritability explains at most 38% of ASD cases; in two places they explain that this is likely an overestimate. So at least 62% of autism cases (and likely significantly more) are caused by something other than genes. HOWEVER, when this study came out, the search for the gene(s) as a cause for autism had already become a large and very profitable industry, and this study showing that autism is NOT primarily genetic was simply brushed aside!

HOW VACCINE MANUFACTURERS TRIED TO DEBUNK THE LINK BETWEEN AUTISM AND VACCINES

Now, flooding academia and society with bogus studies was not the only arrow in the big pharma propaganda quiver; ambitiously, they also corrupted medical literature through going after those researchers and medical practitioners who were frank about the links between autism and vaccines. And in a very famous case, in their efforts to “debunk” the causal link between the vaccines and autism, the pharmaceutical and vaccine enterprise claimed that the only reason people believe vaccines cause autism is because a disgraced British doctor, named Andrew Wakefield, published a fraudulent 1998 study claiming they did and then made everyone start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring, Let’s talk about this.

In essence, whenever the subject of vaccination and autism is raised (particularly within medical circles), you will immediately be told (often in a condescending manner) some variant of a narrative on how Andrew Wakefield was a dishonest doctor who was bribed by lawyers to torture children and publish a fraudulent and deeply flawed study that falsely linked vaccines to autism. You’d also be told that his allegedly abhorrent actions deeply violated the profound trust that people place in scientists, and he even tricked people into believing vaccines cause autism. And so, even though his study has been totally discredited and he lost his medical license for the gross misconduct he committed, his fraudulent study cemented the lie that vaccines cause autism, and despite all the data that is published in modern medical literature, nothing can undo the profound damage that Wakefield did to science, which means the medical and pharmaceutical industries have legitimacy to prevent such an occurrence from being repeated. This is basically the ideal that vaccine manufacturers pedal in an effort to “debunk” the causal link between vaccines and autism.

Now, this narrative on Andrew Wakefeild touches on a key point concerning propaganda. One of the most common ways the corporate propaganda apparatus (known as the PR industry) persuades the public is by sculpting the narrative best suited for swaying public opinion and then blasting it on every media platform while any opposing viewpoint is forbidden from being aired. These lies then become entrenched and everyone starts to independently repeat them as though the idea were their own (we saw this during the COVID plandemic).

In the cause of the vaccine and autism issue, and since Wakefield’s study was published in 1998 (a year after pharmaceutical television advertising became permissible), the study was able to initially gain immense traction in the press (as the media had not yet been bought out). BUT… a few years later, when that pharmaceutical television advertising monopoly had established itself, Andew Wakefeild’s study was suddenly being debunked on every platform. In fact, during that time, Sharyl Attkinson, who was a popular journalist and national news anchor for CBS shared that in the early 2000s, the pharmaceutical industry, feeling the pressure negative coverage of disastrous vaccination programs was creating for them, lobbied to prevent future negative coverage, and after this happened, it became impossible for her to air well produced segments which were critical of any vaccine initiative. Recently she even shared how the CDC was co-opted in this, especially when they went as far as to re-define the word “vaccine” in order to legitimise the COVID jabs.

WHAT THE ANDREW WAKEFIELD SMEAR CAMPAIGN EXPOSES ABOUT PRO-VACCINE PROPAGANDA

Now, there are three critical points to infer from Andrew Wakefield’s experience of being labelled persona non grata after publishing a study that linked vaccines to autism. First, the smear campaign against Andrew Wakefeild was a means through which vaccine manufacturers cemented the lie that no one had ever thought to associate vaccination with brain injuries prior to Wakefield’s study (and hence that all subsequent associations were a product of Wakefield tricking them into seeing a connection that was not there). But, of course,  this is clearly not true because the reason Wakefield did the study was because he was approached by parents who already thought vaccines caused their child’s autism.

Furthermore, in early medical literature (prior to vaccine injuries becoming a taboo subject), many doctors over the decades had actually reported brain damage and characteristic neurological injuries (e.g., cranial nerve palsies) following vaccination that mirror what we see in vaccine-injured children in the present – and so, Andrew Wakefeild was not some petty non-conformist; he rather happened to discuss on autism as neurological injury, while his study made waves because it echoed the experiences of many parents. In fact, you’d recall this excerpt from the documentary titled ‘AUTISM (An orchestrated Crisis)’, which echoes those very concerns even in the present.

So, the second point to infer from the smear campaign against Andrew Wakefeild is that it was conducted to give a very clear warning to every academic journal and researcher to never consider publishing anything that was critical of vaccination (as otherwise they would be raked over the coals for decades by the entire media apparatus like Wakefield was). For a while, this worked as intended (e.g., many scientists have confided to public figures that they know that autism is linked to vaccination but cannot publicly study it) and since Wakefield’s study, virtually no studies have been conducted on vaccine injuries, and of those that were, none could ever be published in a (quote un quote) “reputable” journal.

Then, finally, and equally aggravatingly, the smear campaign against Anndrew Wakefield was also used to cement the lie that the allegedly few incorrect, or fallacious and “doctored” studies that get through are immediately removed, whereas in reality this is not at all true. For example, trial participants and clinical investigators for the HPV and COVID vaccines repeatedly provided proof that fraudulent data was published but the academic journals never even issued a correction of those studies. You’d recall we also discussed, here on ‘The War Room’ how there was fraud detected in Pfizer mRNA vaccine clinical trials studied, and we even looked at a whistleblower’s testimony of how she was fired for exposing this issue to the FDA, while the FDA did nothing to address it. But, here is Dr Andrew Wakefeild discussing how, even in the present and recent history, the CDC covered up evidence and destroyed documents proving that the MMR vaccine caused autism and put millions of children at risk of serious permanent neurological injury.

VACCINE-INDUCED NEUROLOGICAL INJURIES WERE LONG KNOWN TO BE PREVALENT

Now, the claim that Andrew Wakefeild published a fraudulent study that somehow made people start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring ignored that brain injuries were a longstanding problem of vaccination! For example, a 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis ence-phalo-pathy” after taking the DPT vaccine. But, for some reason, most doctors refused to report this, even though medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine went back as far as to the early 1930s, while report after report had been published in medical journals since then. For instance, in 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. Well, those studies have progressively been less discussed, in a world where pharmaceutical companies captured the media, and as a result, this orchestrated a selective amnesia when it comes to the history of vaccines.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso