I posted on the topic of whether increases in autism cases can be fully explained by the changes in definition of the disease and different more inclusive criteria. Couldn't we settle this with a relatively simple study.
Take a newly diagnosed cohort using current criteria. Then diagnose them with the procedures and criteria used in the 60's or 70' and see if you have a 300 times difference.
She went in for a routine “well baby” check-up…
Got slammed with 10 vaccine doses at once… DIED in agony just 5 HOURS later.
(How many here think this is just anti-vax propaganda?)
I'm guessing that most people will agree that 10 doses at once is too much - no matter how pro-vax someone is. But the blinders worn by some professionals in the pro-vax community must have contributed to making this possible.
(Does this count as evidence?)
Diphtheria, a highly contagious bacterial respiratory infection is infecting a population in Australia at a rate 30x higher than the 5-year average, coinciding with the lowest current rate of vaccination for the disease seen in the last 5-years.
It's the black line on the dashboard.
https://www.cdc.gov/nrevss/php/dashboard/index.html
Now that they finally got RSV (Orthnopneumovirus hominis) vaccine on the market, the next step is of course HMPV vaccine. HMPV was isolated in 2001 but it is not known when it emerged. It may have been one of the numerous plagues recorded in the middle ages but might be pre middle ages.
HMPV is also among the most nasty respiratory viruses, much more so than RSV.
"Among the viruses considered, influenza and HMPV were associated with significantly higher symptom scores than RSV, HRV, CoV, adenovirus and PIV. As shown in Figure 1, more than 50% of influenza and HMPV infections were classified as symptomatic by a majority of definitions, whereas the other viruses were mostly asymptomatic according to all definitions (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001 when comparing, respectively, the ratio of symptomatic influenza and HMPV infections to the other viral infections)."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6518513/
Personally, I think it's a good idea but because for every respiratory virus they have vaccine for, they have to add it to the dashboard and track it, it'll then become flu, covid, RSV, HMPV instead of only flu, covid, RSV like it is today.
Inside the hMPV surge: Why vaccine development is accelerating
My baby girl is 14 month old and I noticed a lump on her shoulder. I thought it was a reaction to the vaccines but 1 month and a half later is still there and seems painful to touch as she complaints when I touch her there.
Anyone had something similar with their babies?
Also another thing is since then she’s been constantly catching colds and having fevers. I thought it was because she started daycare 3 months ago but now I’m wondering if this could be because of the vaccination
I tried learning more about COVID-19 vaccine because I need it for my medical profession, and when I browse this reddit space it stinks of government slobbers. I should not have to take a vaccine that was crudely made last second during the pandemic. It has made people lose jobs they had for years because we love to give the government that type of power. The same people in power that you guys trust are the ones that do similar activities like Epstein did. Also, COVID-19 vaccines (most of them) use invasive mRNA technology, which is going to have profound negative effects in the coming decade. Why are people advocating for the mandating of vaccines? My body, other's choice? And then at the same time you guys advocate for abortion. SCIENCE FORBID everyone has the right to their own bodies. Should jobs be allowed to exclude others that have had abortions? Let me know what you guys think. Also, in a separate paragraph, let me know if it is safer to use NOVAXAV vaccine for COVID-19 since its technology is similar to the vaccines we all took when we were first born. (No mRNA)
Tell me why you don’t vaccinate. 🫶🏻
A while back I wrote about how I discovered the shots don't reduce infection rate and wastewater level and I was like hmm that's weird.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/1t3fuxh/two_novavax_trials_proves_covid_shots_do/
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/1tcclzz/data_prove_covid_vaccine_does_not_reduce/
I then dug a little deeper and found out the shots don't even reduce viral load which means it don't even reduce severity.
"Viral Loads Similar Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated People"
It's also glaringly obvious the shots did nothing in 2021 because as you can see in the data the clinical test positivity rate peaked at 11% in August 2021 after people got the shots.
Select the 2021-22 in the Surveillance Year drop down on the right.
EDIT: feel the need to include a caveat here as I see how my original post was not clear on this, I am not treating this LLM as if its interpretations/responses are infallible truths, nor am I solely relying on it to form my opinions, I use it similarly to a search engine/research assistant. I was hoping to have discussions surrounding the veracity of the things talked about in the Substack article, not about the nature of LLM’s as a whole. Just thought our conversation to be interesting and was surprised it cold even be made to say the things it did, even if I was attempting to get a response to a specific question.
I was mainly looking for rebuttals surrounding the arguments against using inert placebos for first in class vaccines and the implications of subsequent vaccines being used as a placebos given the lack of placebos applied in the beginning.
Original post:
Was rereading a Substack post from Aaron Siri where he responds to Paul Offit’s poorly argued Article about an interaction they had on social media, got the idea to get Claude to analyze it and check his sources, kind of amazed I got it to admit the things it did. Please go read the original Substack post, then read me and Claude’s conversation about it.
Anyone still want to debate?
Would sincerely LOVE someone to challenge the veracity of the logical reasoning employed here or the interpretation of the safety data itself.
I tend to agree with Claude’s conclusion that “based on everything examined here, it is a scientific gap that is very difficult to argue against in good faith.”
Siri’s Substack article:
https://open.substack.com/pub/aaronsiri/p/what-the-casual-cruelty-of-dr-paul?r=y9b57&utm_medium=ios
My discussion with Claude:
https://claude.ai/share/01522f01-6213-4df7-abce-a46ddcfeb336
It says here in 1975 it was originally called respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
https://ictv.global/taxonomy/taxondetails?taxnode_id=202501651&taxon_name=Orthopneumovirus%20hominis
Before 2023 when the vaccine came out, no one gave a hoot about it. In 2024 CDC made a model based on its flu deaths model since 2010 and came up with 11,000 deaths that season. This season is a bit less with 9,600 deaths up until now so probably about 10,000 for the season.
https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/php/surveillance/burden-estimates.html
Also, in the NREVSS dashboard, Orthopneumovirus hominis is significant, topping the 5% threshold which excludes it from being a common cold virus according to my definition of common cold virus.
https://www.cdc.gov/nrevss/php/dashboard/index.html
It wasn't until this year FDA approved Orthopneumovirus hominis vaccine for younger adults at higher risk.
Looking for some reassurance. I’m debating whether to get the MMR early for my baby or wait until the 12-month shot considering recent breakouts. I’d love to hear others’ experiences and what you decided to do.
Conclusion: The totality of evidence supports a multifactorial model of ASD in which genetic predisposition, neuroimmune biology, environmental toxicants, perinatal stressors, and iatrogenic exposures converge to produce the phenotype of a post-encephalitic state.
Combination and early-timed routine childhood vaccination represents a significant modifiable risk factor for ASD within a broader multifactorial framework, supported by convergent mechanistic, clinical, and epidemiologic findings, and characterized by intensified use, the clustering of multiple doses during critical neurodevelopmental windows, and the lack of research on the cumulative safety of the full pediatric schedule.
As ASD prevalence continues to rise at an unprecedented pace, clarifying the risks associated with cumulative vaccine dosing and timing remains an urgent public health priority.
I am not attacking vaccination but only a question mark on the following argument: some say the explosion in autism cases in children is due to better diagnosis and better recognition of the condition. But then why dont we have a similar spike in newly diagnosed adults? I am sure there are some but we should have a marked increase that mirrors the one in children
In particular the severe forms leave little room of doubt.
Genuinely asking, not trying to score points. I just want to hear opposing opinions on this issue
Edit: (In response to the comments of which the majority are useful). I have two extra genuine questions.
Again, just don't see "better diagnosis" as a compelling explanation factor. For the reading impaired: not trying do use this post to blame vaccines. Just that common sense dictates that an honest researcher would admit this thing begs a better and urgent explanation. To go from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 36 and shrugh shoulders and say "genetics or better screening" is irresponsible in my opinion.
https://tacanow.org/press-releases/autism-prevalence-is-now-1-in-36/
Following a thorough review of the evidence, NACI makes the following recommendations, which apply for all of 2025 and up to the summer of 2026:
Hey! I have a question over a concern I heard. It’s really weird tbh.
So, I’m friends with a lot of kids from my school’s seventh graders, for context: I go to art class with like 7 of them, so in turn I’m a big sister to lots of the kids there.
This week, they got their HPV shots. Of course I asked this kid, Mia, why she didn’t get hers, since, they asked me before things like : “did it hurt??” Or “was it worth it?” And I of course told them all to get it if they had a say. And this kid told me she didn’t get it. I asked her if her mum or dad prevented her, and she said (not exactly) this:
“Well, we read online that it’s somehow bad for athletes, and can have bed side effects. And you know I go to world championships, and things like that—“
And I’m really confused on that!
So, have you guys heard of opinions like this before?
​
We don't really need to rely on heuristics, when we are able to evaluate the facts to begin with,
BUT:
If you believe the establishment:
The entire motive story just doesn’t add up. Andrew Wakefield had a thriving life before all this: a
well-paid (perhaps well into 6 figures salary), respected specialty practice, a beautiful home and
wife, a solid reputation, charity work that produced lots of funding for Chron's disease (that made it
in Newspapers), world class professional recognition, and stability. What, then, was there to gain?
Or more importantly, what did he lose? The answer is painfully clear: he lost almost everything. His
career, his reputation, his life in Britain, all for some elaborate fraud that, while imaginable in the
abstract, was totally incoherent and extraordinarily high-risk. We have to believe that he
deliberately set out to orchestrate a fraud where he planned to convince regulatory bodies like the
MHRA to approve a product based on a falsified disease pathology, despite the fact that such
agencies are claimed by the mainstream rhetoric, to be so incredibly effective at regulation. We
would also have to believe he could somehow persuade pharmaceutical companies and public
health officials (who specifically, adamantly recommended against single dose/alternative measles
vaccination or MMR alternatives) & MRHA to support a fraud that directly threatened their
established policy, profits and reputation, and that threatened peoples trust in vaccines (which was
essentially a sacred cow to them) and in medicine/public health more broadly.
Whether or not the litigants won the legal case against GSK, Wakefield would have been able to
make the same money, Wakefield wouldn't want this case to end quickly (or win) either, if anything
Wakefield would make more money by dragging out the case so he got more hourly payments
(any legal victories would only benefit the parents anyway, not Wakefield himself). His involvement
was highly publicized in Newspapers; he openly discussed litigation involvement, and research aims in newspapers and on television and in applications for approval for research to the Royal Free
Ethics Committee... So how on earth this can reconcile with the idea that he was hiding something,
is perplexing to imagine.
The scenario becomes even more completely impossible when you consider that Wakefield would
supposedly be simultaneously trying advance lawsuits that antagonized and threatened
pharmaceutical companies, and also, work with those pharmaceutical companies to get his
products manufactured? In reality, the companies would have no reason to support a scheme that
was designed to create fear and public distrust around major pharma products through a major
lawsuit, if anything, they would be infuriated and work actively to block him. The idea that he
would orchestrate a plan where he both threatened and expected collaboration from the very
institutions he was undermining is inherently contradictory. It would require an implausible
alignment of incentives, perfect foresight, and trust from actors who had every reason to oppose
him, conditions that simply cannot exist in the real world.
Perhaps most damning of all, if the fraud was all about profiting from public fear, well... in 1999–
2002, public concern was significant, vaccine uptake dropped, media attention was immense, and,
the perfect conditions arose for him to put this business grift into action. Yet, facing such perfect
opportunity to act, he never pursued a trial, never developed any drugs, and never even tried to do
anything that would advance that supposed motive. In other words, even under the “best possible
conditions” for a fraudulent scheme to succeed, he did nothing to even attempt to capitalize on it!?
And this is supposed to be the most elaborate fraud in medical history? Come ON!! It's patently
absurd! He left his perfect life for, this? You have got to be kidding me!
And, if you thought it couldn't be LESS coherent, well, it can.
Facing a declining vaccine uptake (due to media coverage of Wakefield's work), measles deaths,
and many parents that were asking for safer alternatives to the MMR vaccine who refused MMR
but still wanted to protect their children, the UK government/medical officials actively pushed a
policy against the use of monovalent/single dose vaccines, and specifically made those alternatives
even more difficult to access, even though they existed elsewhere and were technically available
(but hard to get and expensive).
And their main excuse? “We don’t want a drop in vaccine uptake. It takes longer for children to
complete the schedule if they require three separate visits, which they may also fail to attend.
Therefore, we cannot recommend single-dose vaccines for parents who won’t use MMR.”
In other words, they were saying: “Parents who refuse MMR but want an alternative? Fine… don’t
get vaccinated. We’re not offering any choice, because we can’t risk people not getting vaccinated.”
Against their own interests (to maintain vaccine rates), they set policy up that made it difficult for
parents who wanted single/alternative vaccines. Is that evidence of an effort to prevent a control
group? Perhaps it does. We'll never know.
Does it further strengthen the impossibility of Wakefield's elaborate fraud? Indeed it does. That's
because by actively restricting and making access to single-dose alternatives difficult, the
authorities effectively prevented Wakefield from easily profiting from hesitant parents by selling
single vaccines or MMR alternatives, because parents would face significant barriers and pushback
when trying to pursue alternatives, if they would even find out alternatives existed. Their own
policies created the conditions that made any “fraud-for-profit” scheme structurally unworkable
and therefore implausible, because Wakefield was actively aware of this (he received hard pushback
from officials after he promoted the single dose vaccine on TV). =-
When viewed in the totality of the case, the alternative explanation, is a far more coherent
explanation that aligns far closer with the actual evidence. It accounts for incentives, rational
behaviour, and the observed outcomes.
Brian Deer and his book sales, headlines, awards, and payments to do pharma conferences and his
professional reputation? The media, the government, and the medical industrial complex? They all
benefited materially or reputationally, controlling the narrative and consolidating power, protecting
their reputations and their institutions and their vaccine programs. The real “proof of incentives”
lies in who actually gained and who actually lost.
The vilification of Wakefield has arguably become the medical industry’s single most powerful tool
for shutting down debate and “poisoning the well.” Today, any questioning of vaccines at ALL or
broader medical issues AT all, is often met with an immediate, reflexive dismissal which sounds
something like: “Oh, that’s just because of that fraudulent study by Wakefield, it’s all debunked,
discredited quackery!” This reaction demonstrates how effectively the narrative has been leveraged
to protect reputations, institutions, and the dominant consensus, turning Wakefield’s personal ruin
into a broader instrument of control over dissent and skepticism.
If you try to test whether or not, what happened in reality, is coherent with a particular motive or a
framework, and it's basically able to explain everything that did in fact happen after you plug it into
the scenario, it's quite likely that it's fairly close to the truth. Though you can never read minds, and
know true intentions.