So here is the thing...the COVID-19 scam was so profound, most people with a thinking brain are choosing to believe that no medical data in their lifetime is sacred and all is up for question. The evidence shows that every official government/medical/pharmaceutical stance related to COVID-19 was corrupt so why should we believe otherwise about everything else? Based on my own research, such corruption existed long before COVID and peoples' lives were adversely impacted by it accordingly. Likewise, especially during my childhood years, I believe that there were well intentioned (not corrupt) medical procedures that went wrong. In both cases however, financial impact to the breadwinners has always been protected over the well-being of humanity or the dissemination of truth. So now that most of us are awake to the cash cow of medicine, we are sceptical to most claims for or against the topic of the day. In the example you give, I have no idea if the HEP B vax is connected to autism or not, but I do question why anyone would put any credence into a study that was so unbalanced between vaxxed and unvaxxed. How can that possibly present an accurate study result one way or the other? Additionally, studies cannot be just about numbers. So many variables are in play with vaxxed vs. unvaxxed. Unvaxxed people tend to (but not exclusively so) live differently in terms of overall diet (more organic, less GMO, etc...), exercise, educational choices, different social, religious and moral interactions, etc...all that can impact health. So, any study that does not have equitable numbers on both sides and does not take such variables into account seems suspect. Finally, that the government is in any way connected with medical practice and that medical science has become subject to politics rather than political stance being driven by solid scientific facts, pretty much creates a lack of public trust. So RFK can say one thing and you can say another, and both of you can be well intentioned, but I don't believe either one of you because both of you are leaning on the faulty science of the past along with the current corrupt medical science industry.
Yes, that’s where I an, too. In crucial areas, given the very concentrated ownership and control over appointment of journal editors and thus over editorial policy, I can no longer give automatic trust to papers which have been peer-reviewed. So I’m left with a void.
"I have no idea if the HEP B vax is connected to autism or not, but I do question why anyone would put any credence into a study that was so unbalanced between vaxxed and unvaxxed."
Yes, and why in the hell are we giving freaking HOURS OLD NEWBORNS a vaccine for a largely sexually transmitted disease and why are we shamed and given a run around when we ask this?!?
And why are the "experts" in the medical associations (which are really just trade associations protecting their guilds, not protecting patients) not asking this question? Why are pediatricians who supposedly went into that field to support the health of children not asking this question? And why should we trust anything else they tell us if they are so incompetent(or corrupt) as to not ask that basic and obvious question?
What RFK gets right is more important than what he gets wrong. There is a reason why we are all far less healthy than we should be and his dedication to good science and ethical transparency is the key road he is walking down. So I for one will cut him some slack and work with him toward a healthier future.
I have two sons of my 4 children who were seriously harmed as infants: one son by his DPT (not the DTaP) vaccine received at 2 months old and my other son who received his MMR at 16 months old. Direct causation of neurological damage for both sons - NOT just correlation. Heartbreakingly difficult dysfunctional life for one son. The other has compensated in many ways and has somewhat adjusted to the neuro damage he sustained - his adverse event to vaccine was severe but perhaps not quite as severe as his brother’s. I too am a fan of seriously questioning the validity and reliability of ANY info I receive from ANYONE or any research presented as “valid” and “reliable” because when it comes to humans, too many variables can corrupt the research. Egregious marriage between big pharma and medical practice!
Like anyone in leadership, RFK is a politician and thus prone to exaggeration and lies. But he's a useful tool making the point that there is reason to doubt that Public Health has gotten everything right about vaccines. With this tool we will hopefully get better science.
Also please note that the logic of your piece is that up until COVID mitigation Public Health got things mostly right and then out of nowhere they became misguided. That logic doesn't make sense.
Look. I can appreciate the high brow intellectual debate as much as the next person but the fight will never be won in the academic arena or court of public opinion.
This is ONLY about this issue of a mandated injection of an unavoidably unsafe product in the absence of a nationally declared public health emergency as a stipulation to attend K-12 or College.
All vaccines, all of them, are legally considered unavoidably unsafe products. That was the catalyst that led to the passage of the 1986 Childhood Vaccine law. The bigpharma heavily bribed, I mean lobbied Congress to pass the law that since the vaccines produced were legally considered to be unavoidably unsafe, bigpharma needed legal immunity to produce the vaccines. I guess all the morbidity and mortality causal lawsuits were not compatible with vaccine BLA's clinical trials producing inverted risk benefit products... too unavoidably unsafe... so here we are...
The Law afforded development of the Childhood Vaccine Schedule and ultimately mandating the shots as a stipulation to be educated in public schools and/or colleges/universities... which afforded more vaccine development and on and on...
To be clear (yeah I hate the Obama-speak but its necessary), to my knowledge no court, appellete or SCOTUS, has ruled on "mandating an unavoidably unsafe shot in the absence of an national pubkic health energency as a stipulationto do anything.. including educational pursuits".
Unequivocally... and with the support from the SCOTUS mRNA death shot mandate case precedent... the Childhood Shot mandate to attend school is both unlawful and unconstutional.... and no, the Jacobson vs Massachuttes regarding small pox vaccine is not applicable in this scenario.
Leave everything else alone but get rid of the mandates.
Soooo....
Bigpharna keeps their legally immune vaccine ROI and can fake trial data and FDA rubber stamp until the ink runs out.
Academia and public health can continue to self-justify their existence with respect to vaccine recommendations.
Parents who will inject their kids no matter what... mandates or otherwise...can continue to do such.
Parents who choose informed consent and decline the shots can do so without compromising their child's educational pursuits can do so.
Congress doesnt have to do anything like usual but keep collecting checks from bigpharma vax makers.
RFK can do... well.. whatever he is doing with vaccines since Im not sure what that is at this point in time.
RFK Jr. started out very reasonable and restrained, and I supported him then despite a difference of opinion. But he has gotten increasingly unreasonable, in my opinion, in his public claims. I am not going to go along with what he says just because I agree about some things. I’m going to point out where he is saying things that I believe are wrong.
For the record, Im not an anti-vaxer (whatever that means).
Im an anti-mandate for a unavoidably unsafe product with legal immunity injected into kids.
Either get rid of the legal immunity or mandate.
Until either or preferably both happens then I could care less what the vaccine science indicates simply because the legal immunity and mandates negate the legitimacy or otherwise of the vaccibe science.
I respect your views. I don’t have a strong opinion about them one way or the other. But I’m also still interested in discussing the vaccine science and will continue doing so.
No apologies here for stating, what vaccine “science”? The ones Kennedy has asked for with prospective RCT’s from the CDC for approximately 20 years and they’ve refused it. Observational studies which as per Pierre Kory usually align with RCT’s are clear in this regard that the unvaxxed are healthier. Thomas, the Amish, there are several others are large enough to ascertain where this should head when the science is settled after another generation of babies becomes harmed and the economics of their care bankrupts us, all for the Biomedicopharma cartel to realize their profits. Anyone who has done the research over a number of years which should start with Dissolving Illusions and Turtles All the Way Down, well referenced knows the science. Did RFK, Jr miss on this? Maybe. Did he miss on his Fauci book? Well if he did, I’m not aware of any Fauci lawsuits for defamation. We really don’t need anymore science if we follow the Precautionary principle.
Thank you for mentioning the precautionary principle. The burden of proof should always be on the ones promoting a medical intervention, not on those wanting to be left alone.
“I’m a stupid anti-vaxer. I’m so dumb I think I’m smart. So I’ll bloviate and spout conservative/libertarian hackneyed rhetoric so other ignoramuses will think I’m smart too.”
There is no scientific evidence for the existence of any virus. The illnesses which are real but deliberately misattributed to “viral infections” are, crucially, not contagious.
As a consequence of these two factors, the very concept of “vaccines” as described to is is fraudulent.
No one should be exposed to any of them. They are completely unnecessary, without beneficial effect and they are variably harmful.
Some like the “covid19” “vaccines” are unquestionably intentionally harmful, by design.
Indeed Mike, and keep putting it out there. I have followed you from the very beginning of the COVID debacle and so admire your tenacity in the face of so much ignorance. Thank you so much for everything you do to wake the masses. It’s not easy.
So what causes the childhood diseases formerly ascribed to viruses? I’ve read your work, I’ve also experienced all the childhood diseases during the ‘60’s which mostly my siblings got. I practiced Chiropractic for 30 years and was introduced to Terrain Theory then awa the fallacies of Germ Theory. The whole Pasteur vs Bechamp material. Clinically things are happening but you/we need another mechanism to apply your hypothesis to for proof. Vitamin D levels would be a start. Fine to state viruses don’t exist, but a more plausible explanation with specifics is needed to advance your theory.
No need to demonstrate any alternative mechanism for these diseases. Virologists and vaccinologists instead must provide scientific evidence for their extraordinary claims.
You disagree based on what? People who make a claim like "viruses cause disease and therefore we need vaccines to prevent disease" are the ones upon whom the burden of proof logically rests.
Yeadon states no viruses exist, what accounts for or what mechanisms exist for the contagious diseases of childhood then? I disagree with his contention that “the illnesses which are real… are crucially not contagious.”
Starting with measles, which is considered highly contagious, if not viral spread, what causes the symptomatology from person to person? Chickenpox?
Its because the animal reproductive toxicology studies are so alarming. Kind of hard at this point to say "oops, our bad. Sorry pregnant women... especially knowingn the previous sketchy animal data"
But the PREP Act immunity is extended until Jan 1 2030 so it truly makes zero difference even if the reprodictive toxicology is made more publically known. Pfizer cant be sued regardless...
People can spout all the academic goobledygook they want, but the truth remains: Vaccination is one of, if not the greatest, scourge that has ever been visited upon humankind. "Vaccines" poison the body, poison the mind, poison the soul. A pox on Edward Jenner and his memory.
You can always call gobbledygook any views that go against your beliefs. But if you aren’t willing to entertain beliefs at odds with your own, how do you know with certainty that you aren’t wrong? Does science advance by rejecting all alternative views as immoral?
RFK has been obsessed with the autism claim, so given he is a lawyer and not a scientist, it's easy to see that his bias could get in the way of truth.
But here's the difference. The mainstream media is not going to cover for him like they did for Covid. If they bother to do their job, then they'll show why he is wrong on this, and he'll have to backtrack.
Your post should certainly help get the ball rolling. So thank you!
I don't understand your reasoning. You believe the mainstream media covered for covid, right? Like you believe they exaggerated the threat of illness, the efficacy of masks, the shutting down of schools and businesses, and the forcing of everyone to get the vaccines. On whose behalf were they covering? The medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex? Then of course, they won't "cover" for Kennedy on this, yet you think that would be them "doing their job" by "showing he is wrong" on this. No, that would be them continuing to cover for the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex.
The pharmaceuticals aren't effected much by this. They can remove the toxic substance at little cost. The cover is for the Democrats, who the mainstream media is nearly entirely composed of. They want Trump brought down, and it would help them if they could show RFK was a bad choice. They have no incentive to protect him.
Hi Kevin, I value your pursuit of the truth, and your speaking up for truth at personal cost especially in relation to covid and covid vaccines.
I do have questions and concerns over the VSD Phase 2 study design and what it can and cannot tell us.
___
The question being explored by Phase 1 was would vaccinations affect the likelihood of developing autism and other neurological conditions.
The unvaccinated children were very different from the vaccinated children.
There were only 2,500 unvaccinated children, out of more than 100,000 total.
(My understanding is that with an autism rate of approx. 7 in 1,000 at the time one would expect 17 children with autism in the unvaccinated population, if all things were equal and vaccinations had no impact on autism rates.)
___
The question being explored by Phase 2 was would high vs. low thimerosal exposure affect the likelihood of developing autism and other neurological conditions.
A total of 1,008 children participated in the study; of these, 256 had ASD and 752 did not.
The study looked across three different autism outcomes, and across four different exposure periods:
“We used conditional logistic regression to assess associations between ASD, AD, and ASD with regression, and exposure to ethylmercury during prenatal, birth-to-1 month, birth-to-7-month, and birth-to-20-month periods.”
I’m not sure why they did it this way and what the implications are for sub-population numbers, nor actual exposure in the individual. The child’s exposure would have been prenatal to the 20 months. I’d like to have seen the results for the population as a whole. It’s not just because you had low (or high) exposure at prenatally, you continued to have low (or high) exposure through the childhood vaccination period.
“Children were 6 to 13 years old at the time of data collection.”
High exposure equals a 2 standard deviation increase in ethylmercury exposure.
I’m not sure what that means in terms of sub-population sizes.
Here are the findings:
The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for ASD associated with a 2-SD increase in ethylmercury exposure were 1.12 (0.83-1.51) for prenatal exposure, 0.88 (0.62-1.26) for exposure from birth to 1 month, 0.60 (0.36-0.99) for exposure from birth to 7 months, and 0.60 (0.32-0.97) for exposure from birth to 20 months.
Is this study showing a protective effect of thimerosal exposure against autism?
Or is this protective effect an artefact of the study design.
All this is to ask, does this really represent a robust study to answer the question of the impact of thimerosal exposure on likelihood of developing autism (let alone the impact of vaccinations)?
This page on the CDC website links to the published data following VSD Phase 2 studies:
VSD Phase 2 cannot rule out a link. The lead author wrote an editorial emphasizing just that. The point about this post was mainly to point out the way this study has been unfairly demonized by RFK Jr. I personally do not believe that Thimerosal makes any difference. I think regulators were overly cautious which makes RFK Jr.’s attack even more curious to me. That said I am open to the link existing, and this study does not prove it doesn’t.
Since 2000, more than twenty scientific studies have concluded that there is no association between vaccines and autism. The most widely cited studies are:
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 (see 2014 statement from William Thompson and 2014 SafeMinds analysis of FOIA documents obtained from former CDC researcher turned GSK executive Thomas Verstraeten).
J.B. Handley also documents the conflicts of interests and fatal flaws in study design for most of these papers on a brilliant website called 14studies.com.
More recently, vaccine supporters have made a last stand with Hviid et al. (2019) but that study is also fatally flawed (for example the autism rate in their sample was more than 65% lower than in the general Danish population; see analysis in Hammond, Varia, & Hooker, 2025 and James Lyons-Weiler, 2019).
Furthermore even though randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard of biomedicine, none of the studies listed above has a proper control group of unvaccinated children (the Informed Consent Action Network provides the details here). The failure to conduct proper double-blind RCTs renders all of these studies scientifically invalid.
I’m not sure I should weigh in on this topic at all but heck at 77 nobody cares what I say anyhow.
In the SAME way that history never is what it was, Science is never the source of absolute truth. Every historian records the events he sees and maybe experienced. And that one historian never captures what really happened. He can’t. It’s impossible. In the same way, all these elaborate tests that control for variables and are ferreted out through statistical analysis are never THE TRUTH. They might get close but there is always an RFK who sees one explanation and another researcher who sees it another. Accept it, debate it and remain responsive, is my motto.
A few points to consider. The unvaccinated children had fewer visits to Dx anything. Yes, they didn’t require visits as there were no clinical presentations to warrant visits. The Paul Thomas study reveals this. A positive.
It’s now known that using blood levels of mercury are not a way to r/o or properly assess the effects on the brain. What’s known is the immune system carries and deposits mercury to the brain with ethyl mercury seen awa a similar pathway for Al deposition as Exley has alluded to.
I'm considering unfollowing you after reading this. I've read too many medical opinions that align with RFKs analysis, and disagree with yours, to buy into your distorted narrative.
It's not "other people's opinions" that the author of the study deliberately tried to get rid of the association between thimerosal and developmental disorders. He admitted he was trying to do so in an email to a colleague, and we have access to that email, thanks to a FOIA request.
Might I politely say that... from what Ive read that Kevin has posted... Kevin is not an ideologue but tries to take the academic high ground (BTW thats not an insult Kevin). Dont simply dismiss him because you disagree. In my professiinal training, disagreement was not only expected but obligatory.
Problem with all of this vaccine stuff is that there is no study, no expert, no nothing that will be the ultimate arbitrator. Although science is by definition never static, there is a highly developed military-bio pharma medico industrial complex that requires static science in order to push the concept of safe and effective vaccines. After all, there is no unsafe vaccine, right? Just ask the D.O.D and bigpharma and they will tell you just that..
I share youre frustrations but Kevin is not the source of it. Go vent on the alphabet agencies who keep the year after year vaccine gaslighting going.
Dr. Peter McCullough has just finished a book titled "VACCINES Mythology, Ideology, and Reality". it looks pretty comprehensive as well as excellent. (I have not read it yet, as I was just able to pick up a copy yesterday)
All of us were vaxxers, until we researched. The anti-vaxxer power play needs to go as it’s a feeble attempt to gain the high ground while minimizing those of us who’ve done this since the ‘80’s. Thank you.
I would love to hear the TRUE scientific data on ALL childhood vaccines instead of just Hep B…
I would also love to know when vaccines are reformulated and after how many years of study. We all know that the human body of 2025 is not the same human body of the 1950’s. We know this because of GMO, preservatives, unhealthy eating, etc. Things that were unheard of back then. And we especially know this now after the debacle of the Covid vaccine (which thank God I had a GP that warned me against it before it ever came out)
As an average person, not involved in the medical world at all, I would assume that the vaccines would interact differently if not ever reformulated.
To add to your point: One vaccine may pose little risk, but the mountain of vaccines that are being given today to babies (many unnecessary) in a short span of time may well be increasing the risk of autism and other disorders. We simply don’t know.
One vaccine may pose little risk but none of them are necessary. They are all pointless at best. Keep pumping in toxic vaccines and harm will increase.
So here is the thing...the COVID-19 scam was so profound, most people with a thinking brain are choosing to believe that no medical data in their lifetime is sacred and all is up for question. The evidence shows that every official government/medical/pharmaceutical stance related to COVID-19 was corrupt so why should we believe otherwise about everything else? Based on my own research, such corruption existed long before COVID and peoples' lives were adversely impacted by it accordingly. Likewise, especially during my childhood years, I believe that there were well intentioned (not corrupt) medical procedures that went wrong. In both cases however, financial impact to the breadwinners has always been protected over the well-being of humanity or the dissemination of truth. So now that most of us are awake to the cash cow of medicine, we are sceptical to most claims for or against the topic of the day. In the example you give, I have no idea if the HEP B vax is connected to autism or not, but I do question why anyone would put any credence into a study that was so unbalanced between vaxxed and unvaxxed. How can that possibly present an accurate study result one way or the other? Additionally, studies cannot be just about numbers. So many variables are in play with vaxxed vs. unvaxxed. Unvaxxed people tend to (but not exclusively so) live differently in terms of overall diet (more organic, less GMO, etc...), exercise, educational choices, different social, religious and moral interactions, etc...all that can impact health. So, any study that does not have equitable numbers on both sides and does not take such variables into account seems suspect. Finally, that the government is in any way connected with medical practice and that medical science has become subject to politics rather than political stance being driven by solid scientific facts, pretty much creates a lack of public trust. So RFK can say one thing and you can say another, and both of you can be well intentioned, but I don't believe either one of you because both of you are leaning on the faulty science of the past along with the current corrupt medical science industry.
Yes, that’s where I an, too. In crucial areas, given the very concentrated ownership and control over appointment of journal editors and thus over editorial policy, I can no longer give automatic trust to papers which have been peer-reviewed. So I’m left with a void.
And several editors of those journals have openly questioned the validity of conclusions of the papers published within them.
"I have no idea if the HEP B vax is connected to autism or not, but I do question why anyone would put any credence into a study that was so unbalanced between vaxxed and unvaxxed."
Yes, and why in the hell are we giving freaking HOURS OLD NEWBORNS a vaccine for a largely sexually transmitted disease and why are we shamed and given a run around when we ask this?!?
And why are the "experts" in the medical associations (which are really just trade associations protecting their guilds, not protecting patients) not asking this question? Why are pediatricians who supposedly went into that field to support the health of children not asking this question? And why should we trust anything else they tell us if they are so incompetent(or corrupt) as to not ask that basic and obvious question?
Why do we give anyone any vaccine. To keep the medical industrial complex fraud going.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/what-is-the-flu-aka-covid-19-and
You took the words right out of my mouth! THIS!!!
What RFK gets right is more important than what he gets wrong. There is a reason why we are all far less healthy than we should be and his dedication to good science and ethical transparency is the key road he is walking down. So I for one will cut him some slack and work with him toward a healthier future.
I have two sons of my 4 children who were seriously harmed as infants: one son by his DPT (not the DTaP) vaccine received at 2 months old and my other son who received his MMR at 16 months old. Direct causation of neurological damage for both sons - NOT just correlation. Heartbreakingly difficult dysfunctional life for one son. The other has compensated in many ways and has somewhat adjusted to the neuro damage he sustained - his adverse event to vaccine was severe but perhaps not quite as severe as his brother’s. I too am a fan of seriously questioning the validity and reliability of ANY info I receive from ANYONE or any research presented as “valid” and “reliable” because when it comes to humans, too many variables can corrupt the research. Egregious marriage between big pharma and medical practice!
First, do no harm.
Like anyone in leadership, RFK is a politician and thus prone to exaggeration and lies. But he's a useful tool making the point that there is reason to doubt that Public Health has gotten everything right about vaccines. With this tool we will hopefully get better science.
Also please note that the logic of your piece is that up until COVID mitigation Public Health got things mostly right and then out of nowhere they became misguided. That logic doesn't make sense.
Absolutely! The covid debacle finally pulled back the curtain, but the fake wizard was behind it all along.
Look. I can appreciate the high brow intellectual debate as much as the next person but the fight will never be won in the academic arena or court of public opinion.
This is ONLY about this issue of a mandated injection of an unavoidably unsafe product in the absence of a nationally declared public health emergency as a stipulation to attend K-12 or College.
All vaccines, all of them, are legally considered unavoidably unsafe products. That was the catalyst that led to the passage of the 1986 Childhood Vaccine law. The bigpharma heavily bribed, I mean lobbied Congress to pass the law that since the vaccines produced were legally considered to be unavoidably unsafe, bigpharma needed legal immunity to produce the vaccines. I guess all the morbidity and mortality causal lawsuits were not compatible with vaccine BLA's clinical trials producing inverted risk benefit products... too unavoidably unsafe... so here we are...
The Law afforded development of the Childhood Vaccine Schedule and ultimately mandating the shots as a stipulation to be educated in public schools and/or colleges/universities... which afforded more vaccine development and on and on...
To be clear (yeah I hate the Obama-speak but its necessary), to my knowledge no court, appellete or SCOTUS, has ruled on "mandating an unavoidably unsafe shot in the absence of an national pubkic health energency as a stipulationto do anything.. including educational pursuits".
Unequivocally... and with the support from the SCOTUS mRNA death shot mandate case precedent... the Childhood Shot mandate to attend school is both unlawful and unconstutional.... and no, the Jacobson vs Massachuttes regarding small pox vaccine is not applicable in this scenario.
Leave everything else alone but get rid of the mandates.
Soooo....
Bigpharna keeps their legally immune vaccine ROI and can fake trial data and FDA rubber stamp until the ink runs out.
Academia and public health can continue to self-justify their existence with respect to vaccine recommendations.
Parents who will inject their kids no matter what... mandates or otherwise...can continue to do such.
Parents who choose informed consent and decline the shots can do so without compromising their child's educational pursuits can do so.
Congress doesnt have to do anything like usual but keep collecting checks from bigpharma vax makers.
RFK can do... well.. whatever he is doing with vaccines since Im not sure what that is at this point in time.
Questions???
RFK Jr. started out very reasonable and restrained, and I supported him then despite a difference of opinion. But he has gotten increasingly unreasonable, in my opinion, in his public claims. I am not going to go along with what he says just because I agree about some things. I’m going to point out where he is saying things that I believe are wrong.
For the record, Im not an anti-vaxer (whatever that means).
Im an anti-mandate for a unavoidably unsafe product with legal immunity injected into kids.
Either get rid of the legal immunity or mandate.
Until either or preferably both happens then I could care less what the vaccine science indicates simply because the legal immunity and mandates negate the legitimacy or otherwise of the vaccibe science.
End of discussion.
I respect your views. I don’t have a strong opinion about them one way or the other. But I’m also still interested in discussing the vaccine science and will continue doing so.
No apologies here for stating, what vaccine “science”? The ones Kennedy has asked for with prospective RCT’s from the CDC for approximately 20 years and they’ve refused it. Observational studies which as per Pierre Kory usually align with RCT’s are clear in this regard that the unvaxxed are healthier. Thomas, the Amish, there are several others are large enough to ascertain where this should head when the science is settled after another generation of babies becomes harmed and the economics of their care bankrupts us, all for the Biomedicopharma cartel to realize their profits. Anyone who has done the research over a number of years which should start with Dissolving Illusions and Turtles All the Way Down, well referenced knows the science. Did RFK, Jr miss on this? Maybe. Did he miss on his Fauci book? Well if he did, I’m not aware of any Fauci lawsuits for defamation. We really don’t need anymore science if we follow the Precautionary principle.
Thank you for mentioning the precautionary principle. The burden of proof should always be on the ones promoting a medical intervention, not on those wanting to be left alone.
Im on the same page as you... 👊💪
Here's the TL; DR summary of your comment:
“I’m a stupid anti-vaxer. I’m so dumb I think I’m smart. So I’ll bloviate and spout conservative/libertarian hackneyed rhetoric so other ignoramuses will think I’m smart too.”
I like you. Good stuff.
https://youtu.be/FzHLYJbHRg0?feature=shared
There is no scientific evidence for the existence of any virus. The illnesses which are real but deliberately misattributed to “viral infections” are, crucially, not contagious.
As a consequence of these two factors, the very concept of “vaccines” as described to is is fraudulent.
No one should be exposed to any of them. They are completely unnecessary, without beneficial effect and they are variably harmful.
Some like the “covid19” “vaccines” are unquestionably intentionally harmful, by design.
Indeed Mike, and keep putting it out there. I have followed you from the very beginning of the COVID debacle and so admire your tenacity in the face of so much ignorance. Thank you so much for everything you do to wake the masses. It’s not easy.
So what causes the childhood diseases formerly ascribed to viruses? I’ve read your work, I’ve also experienced all the childhood diseases during the ‘60’s which mostly my siblings got. I practiced Chiropractic for 30 years and was introduced to Terrain Theory then awa the fallacies of Germ Theory. The whole Pasteur vs Bechamp material. Clinically things are happening but you/we need another mechanism to apply your hypothesis to for proof. Vitamin D levels would be a start. Fine to state viruses don’t exist, but a more plausible explanation with specifics is needed to advance your theory.
No need to demonstrate any alternative mechanism for these diseases. Virologists and vaccinologists instead must provide scientific evidence for their extraordinary claims.
Disagree.
You disagree based on what? People who make a claim like "viruses cause disease and therefore we need vaccines to prevent disease" are the ones upon whom the burden of proof logically rests.
Yeadon states no viruses exist, what accounts for or what mechanisms exist for the contagious diseases of childhood then? I disagree with his contention that “the illnesses which are real… are crucially not contagious.”
Starting with measles, which is considered highly contagious, if not viral spread, what causes the symptomatology from person to person? Chickenpox?
I need this explained to me,too. Identical symptoms, seemingly contagious situations---chicken pox parties--etc. What is going on?
https://substack.com/profile/48249481-doc-choc-md/note/c-123989340
You never replied, Dr. Yeadon
I would say people need to continue to question. It is important to not take things at face value.
There is no long term safety trials on covid vaccines, until there are, they should be off the market for everyone
They should be off the market permanently because the entire event is fraudulent.
By the way, 4.5 years on, there’s still no reproductive toxicology package to review.
Its because the animal reproductive toxicology studies are so alarming. Kind of hard at this point to say "oops, our bad. Sorry pregnant women... especially knowingn the previous sketchy animal data"
But the PREP Act immunity is extended until Jan 1 2030 so it truly makes zero difference even if the reprodictive toxicology is made more publically known. Pfizer cant be sued regardless...
People can spout all the academic goobledygook they want, but the truth remains: Vaccination is one of, if not the greatest, scourge that has ever been visited upon humankind. "Vaccines" poison the body, poison the mind, poison the soul. A pox on Edward Jenner and his memory.
https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/#photos
https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-movie-that-inspired-a-movement/
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/vaccine-coverup-final-for-medical-veritas.pdf
https://followthesilenced.com/
You can always call gobbledygook any views that go against your beliefs. But if you aren’t willing to entertain beliefs at odds with your own, how do you know with certainty that you aren’t wrong? Does science advance by rejecting all alternative views as immoral?
Right back at you, Kevin. Unfortunately science has devolved into a cult of fat egos dripping with arrogance, hubris, and almost zero self-reflection.
No disagreement. The loudest voices are terrible.
Oh, you mean like kevin bass. Good example.
RFK has been obsessed with the autism claim, so given he is a lawyer and not a scientist, it's easy to see that his bias could get in the way of truth.
But here's the difference. The mainstream media is not going to cover for him like they did for Covid. If they bother to do their job, then they'll show why he is wrong on this, and he'll have to backtrack.
Your post should certainly help get the ball rolling. So thank you!
I don't understand your reasoning. You believe the mainstream media covered for covid, right? Like you believe they exaggerated the threat of illness, the efficacy of masks, the shutting down of schools and businesses, and the forcing of everyone to get the vaccines. On whose behalf were they covering? The medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex? Then of course, they won't "cover" for Kennedy on this, yet you think that would be them "doing their job" by "showing he is wrong" on this. No, that would be them continuing to cover for the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex.
The pharmaceuticals aren't effected much by this. They can remove the toxic substance at little cost. The cover is for the Democrats, who the mainstream media is nearly entirely composed of. They want Trump brought down, and it would help them if they could show RFK was a bad choice. They have no incentive to protect him.
Hi Kevin, I value your pursuit of the truth, and your speaking up for truth at personal cost especially in relation to covid and covid vaccines.
I do have questions and concerns over the VSD Phase 2 study design and what it can and cannot tell us.
___
The question being explored by Phase 1 was would vaccinations affect the likelihood of developing autism and other neurological conditions.
The unvaccinated children were very different from the vaccinated children.
There were only 2,500 unvaccinated children, out of more than 100,000 total.
(My understanding is that with an autism rate of approx. 7 in 1,000 at the time one would expect 17 children with autism in the unvaccinated population, if all things were equal and vaccinations had no impact on autism rates.)
___
The question being explored by Phase 2 was would high vs. low thimerosal exposure affect the likelihood of developing autism and other neurological conditions.
A total of 1,008 children participated in the study; of these, 256 had ASD and 752 did not.
The study looked across three different autism outcomes, and across four different exposure periods:
“We used conditional logistic regression to assess associations between ASD, AD, and ASD with regression, and exposure to ethylmercury during prenatal, birth-to-1 month, birth-to-7-month, and birth-to-20-month periods.”
I’m not sure why they did it this way and what the implications are for sub-population numbers, nor actual exposure in the individual. The child’s exposure would have been prenatal to the 20 months. I’d like to have seen the results for the population as a whole. It’s not just because you had low (or high) exposure at prenatally, you continued to have low (or high) exposure through the childhood vaccination period.
“Children were 6 to 13 years old at the time of data collection.”
High exposure equals a 2 standard deviation increase in ethylmercury exposure.
I’m not sure what that means in terms of sub-population sizes.
Here are the findings:
The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for ASD associated with a 2-SD increase in ethylmercury exposure were 1.12 (0.83-1.51) for prenatal exposure, 0.88 (0.62-1.26) for exposure from birth to 1 month, 0.60 (0.36-0.99) for exposure from birth to 7 months, and 0.60 (0.32-0.97) for exposure from birth to 20 months.
Is this study showing a protective effect of thimerosal exposure against autism?
Or is this protective effect an artefact of the study design.
All this is to ask, does this really represent a robust study to answer the question of the impact of thimerosal exposure on likelihood of developing autism (let alone the impact of vaccinations)?
This page on the CDC website links to the published data following VSD Phase 2 studies:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-systems/vsd/access-use.html#cdc_generic_section_1-public-use-datasets
VSD Phase 2 cannot rule out a link. The lead author wrote an editorial emphasizing just that. The point about this post was mainly to point out the way this study has been unfairly demonized by RFK Jr. I personally do not believe that Thimerosal makes any difference. I think regulators were overly cautious which makes RFK Jr.’s attack even more curious to me. That said I am open to the link existing, and this study does not prove it doesn’t.
TWENTY-TWO STUDIES IN THE VACCINE COVER-UP
Since 2000, more than twenty scientific studies have concluded that there is no association between vaccines and autism. The most widely cited studies are:
Fombonne & Chakrabarti, 2001;
Madsen et al., 2002;
Mäkelä, Nuorti, & Peltola, 2002;
Pichichero, Cernichiari, Lopreiato, & Treanor, 2002;
Hviid, Stellfeld, Wohlfahrt, & Melbye, 2003;
Madsen et al., 2003;
Nelson & Bauman, 2003;
Stehr-Green, Tull, Stellfeld, Mortenson, & Simpson, 2003;
Verstraeten et al., 2003;
Wilson, Mills, Ross, McGowan, & Jadad, 2003;
Andrews et al., 2004;
Heron & Golding, 2004;
Smeeth et al., 2004;
Honda, Shimizu, & Rutter, 2005;
Fombonne et al., 2006;
Miles & Takahashi, 2007;
Thompson et al., 2007;
Baird et al., 2008;
Hornig et al. 2008;
Schechter & Grether, 2008; and
Tozzi et al., 2009.
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 (see 2014 statement from William Thompson and 2014 SafeMinds analysis of FOIA documents obtained from former CDC researcher turned GSK executive Thomas Verstraeten).
J.B. Handley also documents the conflicts of interests and fatal flaws in study design for most of these papers on a brilliant website called 14studies.com.
More recently, vaccine supporters have made a last stand with Hviid et al. (2019) but that study is also fatally flawed (for example the autism rate in their sample was more than 65% lower than in the general Danish population; see analysis in Hammond, Varia, & Hooker, 2025 and James Lyons-Weiler, 2019).
Furthermore even though randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard of biomedicine, none of the studies listed above has a proper control group of unvaccinated children (the Informed Consent Action Network provides the details here). The failure to conduct proper double-blind RCTs renders all of these studies scientifically invalid.
Yes, and who funded the studies? Pharmaceutical companies?
Exactly!
Who better than to hide the damages they were causing all along and control the outcomes of the studies!
I was going to point people to J.B. Handley's excellent work on this topic!
Very interesting analysis. Thanks for clarifying!
Will you give the other side a listen now? Here's a great breakdown from someone who has been in the conversation since the early 2000s.
https://gingertaylor.substack.com/p/the-anatomy-of-the-verstraeten-fraud
I certainly will!
I’m not sure I should weigh in on this topic at all but heck at 77 nobody cares what I say anyhow.
In the SAME way that history never is what it was, Science is never the source of absolute truth. Every historian records the events he sees and maybe experienced. And that one historian never captures what really happened. He can’t. It’s impossible. In the same way, all these elaborate tests that control for variables and are ferreted out through statistical analysis are never THE TRUTH. They might get close but there is always an RFK who sees one explanation and another researcher who sees it another. Accept it, debate it and remain responsive, is my motto.
A few points to consider. The unvaccinated children had fewer visits to Dx anything. Yes, they didn’t require visits as there were no clinical presentations to warrant visits. The Paul Thomas study reveals this. A positive.
It’s now known that using blood levels of mercury are not a way to r/o or properly assess the effects on the brain. What’s known is the immune system carries and deposits mercury to the brain with ethyl mercury seen awa a similar pathway for Al deposition as Exley has alluded to.
I'm considering unfollowing you after reading this. I've read too many medical opinions that align with RFKs analysis, and disagree with yours, to buy into your distorted narrative.
Fortunately for me the truth is not determined by other people’s opinions
It's not "other people's opinions" that the author of the study deliberately tried to get rid of the association between thimerosal and developmental disorders. He admitted he was trying to do so in an email to a colleague, and we have access to that email, thanks to a FOIA request.
Might I politely say that... from what Ive read that Kevin has posted... Kevin is not an ideologue but tries to take the academic high ground (BTW thats not an insult Kevin). Dont simply dismiss him because you disagree. In my professiinal training, disagreement was not only expected but obligatory.
Problem with all of this vaccine stuff is that there is no study, no expert, no nothing that will be the ultimate arbitrator. Although science is by definition never static, there is a highly developed military-bio pharma medico industrial complex that requires static science in order to push the concept of safe and effective vaccines. After all, there is no unsafe vaccine, right? Just ask the D.O.D and bigpharma and they will tell you just that..
I share youre frustrations but Kevin is not the source of it. Go vent on the alphabet agencies who keep the year after year vaccine gaslighting going.
Dr. Peter McCullough has just finished a book titled "VACCINES Mythology, Ideology, and Reality". it looks pretty comprehensive as well as excellent. (I have not read it yet, as I was just able to pick up a copy yesterday)
He is not an anti vaxxer, btw.
All of us were vaxxers, until we researched. The anti-vaxxer power play needs to go as it’s a feeble attempt to gain the high ground while minimizing those of us who’ve done this since the ‘80’s. Thank you.
👍
I would love to hear the TRUE scientific data on ALL childhood vaccines instead of just Hep B…
I would also love to know when vaccines are reformulated and after how many years of study. We all know that the human body of 2025 is not the same human body of the 1950’s. We know this because of GMO, preservatives, unhealthy eating, etc. Things that were unheard of back then. And we especially know this now after the debacle of the Covid vaccine (which thank God I had a GP that warned me against it before it ever came out)
As an average person, not involved in the medical world at all, I would assume that the vaccines would interact differently if not ever reformulated.
To add to your point: One vaccine may pose little risk, but the mountain of vaccines that are being given today to babies (many unnecessary) in a short span of time may well be increasing the risk of autism and other disorders. We simply don’t know.
Yep. One of the many many questions needing answered
One vaccine may pose little risk but none of them are necessary. They are all pointless at best. Keep pumping in toxic vaccines and harm will increase.