This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1902; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1902-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. This section forms part 1, looking at the inoculators and their critics.
The History of Inoculation
Inoculation was the practise of deliberately infecting someone with smallpox. The theory behind the practise was that a person could only get smallpox once, and would then get what we would call natural immunity. Although this concept was not understood, it was observed that smallpox was only contracted once. As such, by selecting the time and place of infection, and by carrying out additional practices such as the following of certain diets, smallpox could be rendered a milder disease with a greater chance of survival.
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu observed the practise of inoculation in Turkey and had one of her children inoculated while over there. She introduced the practise to her physician, Charles Maitland, who was taken with the idea and began to practise inoculation on willing members of the elite. There was a brief fad for this practise initially, but the first wave of enthusiasm died out quite quickly, and the number of inoculations performed was still very small. Some doctors tried to collect scientific data relaying to inoculation, such as Jurin, who attempted to figure out the death rate from inoculation versus the death rate from natural smallpox infection – he calculated it at about one in 50 for inoculation versus 1 in 6 for the natural disease. On this basis, he argued for the supremacy of inoculation but acknowledged that it had some risk.
Inoculation became more widely practised later on in the 18th century and particularly in the second half of that century, with the rise of the Suttonian method of inoculation, which was less harsh on the body. Daniel Sutton was able to widely promote his method among elites, and inoculation became more popular. The Suttonian method was that in practise before it was replaced by the cowpoxing method associated with Edward Jenner.
The Masseys – The Original Anti Vaccinationists
In response to the introduction of inoculation, two men, Isaac and Edward Massey, brought objections to the table against the new practise. They could be considered the original antivaccinationists. Each of the Masseys put forward a different approach to the issue.
Edmund Massey’s religious objections
Edmund Massey was a Christian clergyman at a church in London, and he objected to inoculation on religious grounds. He preached a notable sermon in 1722 against the new practise which was distributed in written format. The first argument he uses against inoculation is that it is forbidden for man to deliberately inflict disease. He states that while the Bible furnishes examples of men healing when given divine power, there are no examples of men directly inflicting disease. Instead, God inflicts disease to test people’s faith and to punish sin. He raised the book of Job as an example of this.
Isaac Massey’s scientific objections
Isaac Massey raised scientific objections to inoculation. He was an apocethary (which was quite vaguely defined but involved working in the medical profession). In his book, A Short and Plain Account of Inoculation, he raised several different scientific objections to the practise. For example, he claimed that those who were inoculated were not necessarily getting genuine smallpox. He pointed out that it was an uncertain procedure, despite the claims of the inoculators to the contrary that factors such as age and the time of year can be controlled.
He stated that inoculation was ‘a disease of their own making and procurement’. He argued that when true smallpox is spread by inoculation, it can also spread to other people, such as in the case of the inoculation of Mary Batt, which spread smallpox and led to the death of a servant. He argued for living a sober lifestyle as a means to reduce the risk from smallpox.
In his book addressing Jurin’s statistical claims, he argues that Jurin did not allow for factors such as age, disease and poverty when calculating comparative death rates. Most who would have been inoculated when Massey was writing would have been elites, who would have had a better rate of survival from natural smallpox due to more adequate nutrition and being less likely to live in complete squalor. He thus considered that Jurin was not comparing like with like. He also pointed out that inoculation may spread other diseases. He pointed out that the initial claims of the inoculators was that the procedure was harmlessly and that this had to be revised when deaths occurred.
Conclusion
The objections to inoculation did not prevent the practise from eventually becoming widespread in certain elite circles. Inoculation formed the ideological basis for Jenner’s much more well known vaccination practise.
Since the 1990s, the idea of ‘neurodiversity’ has become a cottage industry. The basic tenet of neurodiversity is that autism is a perfectly normal variation of human development that should not be seen as a negative trait. It seeks to highlight the alleged ‘positive’ traits of autism and believes that the struggles of people with autism are largely caused by society not being accepting rather than the inherent downsides of the condition. This article will seek to discuss three parts of this phenomenon by comparing two theories of autism: the neurodiversity theory of autism and the iatrogenic theory of autism i.e. vaccine injury. The first part will discuss the evidence for each theory, concluding that vaccine injury has a large amount of evidence to support it. The second part of this article will look at the individuals and institutions that promote each theory and how the media portrays each group. The third part will draw it together by explaining how the neurodiversity theory is constructed as an alternative to deflect from the vaccine injury theory and to gaslight people suffering with autistic vaccine-injury and their parents about their experiences.
Part I: Two Theories
There are two main theories of autism. The first theory states that autism is genetic, and the second theory states that autism is iatrogenic. The first theory is advocated by both people who think that autism is a good thing, and by those who think it is a bad thing. The latter group of people, who believe that autism is a net negative but who also believe it is genetic, will not be discussed in this article. Instead we will be comparing the ‘autism is a positive, genetic gift’ group (the ‘neurodiversity’ group) to the ‘autism is iatrogenic, largely caused by vaccination’ group (the ‘vaccine-injury theory’ group). Part I will outline these two theories and look at the evidence.
The Neurodiversity Theory of Autism
What is the ‘neurodiversity’ theory of autism? It can be summed up by saying that autism is not a disability, it is a difference that should be celebrated. If you search for ‘neurodiversity’ you can find all sorts of articles advocating for this. Here’s one picked at random:
Neurodiversity is a movement that wants to change the way we think about autism. It rejects the idea that autism is a disorder and sees it instead as a neurological difference: one with a unique way of thinking and experiencing the world.
The movement focuses on celebrating neurological diversity and championing the different world-views and skills that autistic, dyslexic, bipolar, and other neurodiverse people have.
The idea of ‘neurodiversity’ has been increasing in popularity as a paradigm to ‘explain’ autism.
Of course, saying that autism is a positive trait does not explain it. So neurodiversity theorists use genetics to explain autism.
I will argue that both sides of the neurodiversity coin are false: having autism is always a negative thing, and that genetics does not explain autism.
Let’s start with the genetics aspect. One significant piece of evidence that the autism-is-genetic advocates use is twin studies:
Since the first autism twin study in 1977, several teams have compared autism rates in twins and shown that autism is highly heritable. When one identical twin has autism, there is about an 80 percent chance that the other twin has it too. The corresponding rate for fraternal twins is around 40 percent.
On the surface, twin studies look like exceedingly convincing evidence. They have been used to argue for a genetic link for a varying range of problems, including schizophrenia. In reality, though, twin studies are not good evidence that autism is genetic.
The problem that we run into is that twins are likely to have had the same environmental exposure, and this is doubly true when it comes to vaccination. No parent is going to vaccinate one of their twins and not vaccinate the other in some sort of science experiment. Thus both twins will be getting very similar exposure to aluminium, thimerosal, etc. via vaccinations. (Though see this caveat: aluminium levels in vaccination can vary significantly when vials are actually examined). The other major issue with twin studies is that they conclude that interaction between the body and these kinds of exposures is ‘genetic’. A genetic propensity to, say, accumulate certain toxins may well exist in autism cases. But in order for autism to develop, exposure to the toxin is required, and exposure to a toxin is not genetic. The same weakness applies when looking at alleged genes that have been associated with autism – it could be that those genes simply predispose a person to toxin accumulation.
The main weakness in the genetic case for autism is below:
It goes without saying that human genes have not radically changed since 1970. So how can the autism rates have changed so drastically? Autism-is-genetic advocates have tried their best to explain this graph, but they have done a bad job of it, because the whole graph screams ‘environmental causes’. But let’s have a look at their explanations for an increase in autism.
The main explanation offered is that the definition of autism has got wider and that is why these numbers have increased so much. Intuitively, this is a really poor explanation, for a number of reasons. For a start, we are looking a massive, massive increase. 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 30 is huge. To explain this simply by stating ‘it’s increased diagnosis’ is intuitively and logically implausible. People who argue this, I think, don’t understand how large a proportion of the population 3% is. That is a very significant chunk of the population. Older people here can employ their common sense. Were 3% or more of your childhood colleagues autistic? If you doubt that you could tell, I assure you that you can with just a little thought. Poor eye contact is a dead giveaway for autism, as is just an obvious awkwardness. The reality is, even ‘high functioning’ autistic people just seem odd, weird and off in particular ways so I would say you could almost always tell. Furthermore, the unemployment rate for people with autism, according to UK government data, is 78%. If we approximate the data, if 1 in 30 people are autistic and 2/3 (being generous) cannot work, this means around 2% of the population cannot work due to autism. The idea that government institutions never noticed 2% of the population being unemployable due to autism is laughably implausible.
This hypothesis also does not fit the shape of the graph very well. It keeps curving upwards, rather than seeing a bump for a change in diagnostic criteria and a levelling. The graph has still not levelled off. At some point, you have to start asking questions.
This issue also becomes more difficult to cover up when you consider severe autism. Autistic people who have a basic level of functioning in the ‘real world’ may just come across to normal people as a bit weird. In these people’s case, it’s more possible that they may not have a diagnosis. This would not be the case with those with severe autistic deficits. Again this is another argument that is just absurd on the face of it:
You can’t have missed 97 percent of the children in the ’80s who had autism. They’re trying to get the public to believe that kids who spin in circles, don’t speak, don’t socialize, can’t go to the bathroom by themselves all existed in our public high schools and elementary schools in the ’80s but only today have gotten a proper diagnosis. It’s incomprehensible.
Aside from being intuitively implausible, one study on this issue concluded:
In summary, the incidence of autism rose 7- to 8-fold in California from the early 1990s through the present. Quantitative analysis of the changes in diagnostic criteria, the inclusion of milder cases, and an earlier age at diagnosis during this period suggests that these factors probably contribute 2.2-, 1.56-, and 1.24-fold increases in autism, respectively, and hence cannot fully explain the magnitude of the rise in autism.
But what about the claim that autism is always a net negative? Surely that’s a little bit fundamentalist? After all, some of the advocates of the neurodiversity theory are autistic themselves, right, and surely they would know? So let’s tackle this thorny question.
The most obvious piece of evidence to start with is life expectancy. The evidence demonstrates that autism significantly decreases life expectancy. This is pretty mainstream evidence that can be found with a quick search.
One study, published in the American Journal of Public Health in April 2017, finds the life expectancy in the United States of those with ASD to be 36 years old as compared to 72 years old for the general population.
In other words, according to this study autism halves life expectancy.
The other study was published by the British Journal of Psychiatry in January 2018. This was a Swedish study showing similar results but elaborating on other causes of death as well. This study showed a life expectancy in those with ASD with a cognitive disability (or a learning disability) at 39.5 years versus 70 years for the general population studied. Those with ASD without a learning disability had an average age of death at about 58 years.
Furthermore, most of these causes of death are inherent to autism. For example, being much more likely to die in an accident. Autistic people have poor motor control and are much more likely to have these kinds of accidents such as drowning that lead to death. Horrific anxiety at normal experiences, such as sensory issues around normal noise/light/smell stimuli, also increases mortality as the body becomes overwhelmed with the constant anxiety triggers, meaning that the body’s ability to fight cancers is impaired, and heart attack and stroke risk is increased. People with autism are also unemployed/unemployable, with only about 20% of autistic people even being employed in the UK. This is linked to having awful social skills, having severe anxiety, and in some cases being completely non verbal and non functional. Being perennially unemployable is bad for your health; higher unemployment rates have been well established to be linked to mortality in sociology.
A study that followed autistic people for 20 years showed even more negative outcomes, although most of the participants also had other intellectual disabilities.
The outcome data was grim, showing pervasive inability to live independently, hold a job, or manage money. Few became independent, with 99% unable to live independently. Of those, 70% lived at home with relatives, 21% lived in disability homes in the community, and 8% in residential facilities. A mere 3.7% attained postsecondary education, about half of those representing certificates from college disability programs. While the majority were considered incapable of holding a job in the competitive workspace, some worked in disability workshops or other sheltered positions. Most participants were incapable of handling money, even with caretaker assistance, with only 9.5% considered capable.
The neurodiversity paradigm likes to attempt to escape from this reality by claiming that this is purely down to ‘society’ refusing to accept us. That argument is nonsense. The argument is most obviously flawed when it comes to those with severe autism, since any range of accommodations will not fix deficits such as being non verbal, not being able to go to the toilet by yourself, seizures (comorbid with autism), extremely poor motor control, severe gastroenterological issues (linked to autism), sensory issues and meltdowns, etc. If a neurodiversity advocate would like to explain how ‘acceptance’ will fix these problems, the comment section is all theirs. But it is even pretty much nonsense when it comes to ‘high functioning’ autism as well. The reality is ‘acceptance’ and accommodations only really make a difference in edge cases when it comes to solving the issues outlined above. Take for example ability to work. The severely impaired autistic person will never be able to work, you can throw all the accommodations in the world at the issue, it’s not going to happen. Whereas, a high functioning or borderline high functioning autistic person may be able to work if given a few accommodations. I’m not arguing against accommodations. What I am arguing against is the idea that accommodations, or society being more accepting of autism will fix our problems. It won’t.
As for the supposed ‘positive’ aspects of autism, what are they? Usually, it is claimed that many people with autism are more intelligent and analytical than normal people. However, this is likely to confuse correlation and causation. The most plausible explanation here is that brain development is more likely to be disrupted by toxins in the case of intelligent people due to more dense neuron growth in highly intelligent people. And again, severe cases of autism are erased by this view. It glorifies a very narrow spectrum of individuals with autistic injury – the ‘autistic savant’ – while writing off the harms done to the rest.
So what about the people with autism diagnoses who make the claim that autism is a positive thing and that neurodiversity is valid? Well, if someone with an autism diagnosis saying something settles the question, then autism is a devastating vaccine-injury that destroys and obscures the true personality of the individual, rather than reflecting it. Because of course this author has an autism diagnosis. So this kind of argument gets us nowhere.
The Vaccine-Injury Theory of Autism
There is an alternative, ‘underground’ theory of autism which advocates for the view that autism is (at least primarily) caused by vaccination. This article will discuss one cause of autism that the author believes has been comprehensively documented, that is aluminium adjuvants in vaccination entering the brain, disrupting the housekeeping cells of the brain (glia and microglia)and triggering inflammatory reactions such as the il-6 pathway. This is not to say that there are no other problems with vaccination as it relates to autism or no other possible causes (e.g. thimerosal). This article will stick to one cause for reasons of length and clarity.
I will go into a little bit more detail on the basic theory, before discussing the evidence. Aluminium is used in ~80% of vaccines as an adjuvant (substance used to promote an immune response). It is in the vast majority of childhood vaccines, excluding the MMR. However, aluminium is also a neurotoxin that the body cannot filter out effectively when injected, and because of this it can enter the brain. In short, the mechanism of how the injury occurs is like this. The aluminium in a vaccine is injected into the body. Immune cells are stimulated to respond to the site of injection. These immune cells (macrophages) respond and ‘swallow’ the aluminium. But when any inflammatory event in the brain occurs, these cells will be called upon to help, but instead will bring a massive payload of toxic aluminium with them into the brain.
A set of nine criteria used to determine the strength of an association between a disease and its supposed causative agent. They form the basis of modern medical and dental epidemiological research.
The more of the Bradford-Hill criteria you can demonstrate, the more likely it is that A causes B. Let’s look at these criteria with relevance to the fact that vaccines cause autism.
The first factor we can discuss is coherence. In other words, “does the association fit with other facts?” In the case of the above theory, it fits very well with facts about aluminium.
Aluminium is toxic to the human body. Aluminium has no biological function in human life and so its presence in the human body is always a net negative. The idea than aluminium, at least, can be toxic is widely accepted. Furthermore, it is accepted that aluminium can enter into brain tissue. Even more than this, it is accepted that it can cause harm once it gets into the brain tissue. One form of aluminium toxicity where this occurs has been observed in dialysis patients:
[A]luminium toxicity occurs due to contamination of dialysis solutions, and treatment of the patients with aluminium-containing phosphate binding gels. Aluminium has been shown to be the major contributor to the dialysis encephalopathy [“damage or disease that affects the brain”] syndrome and an osteomalacic component of dialysis osteodystrophy.
In stating this so far, I haven’t deviated from accepted science. Slightly more controversial than this is the idea that Alzheimer’s is caused by aluminium in the brain. This idea has been around since 1965 according to the Alzheimer’s Society. Although some people doubt the correlation-causation relationship (I would argue more for financial reasons than scientific), there is evidence from a wide range of sources.
The Scotsman reported on a study performed by researchers looking at aluminium levels in drinking water that found people in areas with higher levels of aluminium were more likely to die of dementia. The study’s author said:
We still see this well accepted finding that higher levels of aluminium in particular are associated with an increased risk of dementia. It’s confirmatory rather than anything else. [my emphasis]
Dr. Chris Exley has done multiple studies showing high levels of aluminium in the brains of those who died with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.
Animal studies also provide further evidence for the fact that aluminium in injurious to the brain. Dr. Christopher Exley observed, when he was studying fish, that when the fish were exposed to aluminium, they would start hanging out in the corner of the tank. Another study, performed by a sheep farmer (and shown in the Bert Ehgartner documentary, Under the Skin), showed that sheep injected with aluminium adjuvant (even without an antigen) showed much higher levels of aggressive behaviour and did things like grind their teeth on metal railings. Mice are also negatively affected by aluminium:
Male mice in the “high Al” group showed significant changes in light–dark box tests and in various measures of behaviour in an open field. Female mice showed significant changes in the light–dark box at both doses, but no significant changes in open field behaviours.
Thus, aluminium was clearly affecting the neurochemistry of the animals, and these behaviours are decent proxies for autistic symptoms in humans (aggression being analogous to autistic meltdowns and the fish acting strangely being analogous to social avoidance).
All of this evidence is a strong case that the aluminium factor in autism is coherent. We know aluminium is toxic and can harm the brain. Therefore that it can cause the kind of behavioural issues that we observe in autism cannot be prima facie ruled out. This is Criteria 1 on our Bradford Hill list solidly met.
The next criteria we can discuss is dose-response relationship. In short, if we give more aluminium adjuvants to children, do we see an increase in autism? Recall our graph from above – the 1-in-10000 to the 1-in-36 increase in autism prevalence. Now let’s compare this to the increase in aluminium adjuvants and thus exposure.
Shaw and Tomljenovic wrote a paper addressing this topic:
By applying Hill’s criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p<0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3-4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89-0.94, p=0.0018-0.0248).
The correlation here is strong – more doses, more autism. The dose-response relationship is in this data. Point 2 on the Bradford Hill Criteria list is met.
The third factor that we can discuss is strength of association. Or in other words, how much is the difference in observed rates of autism between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated? This question is not all that easy to answer, mostly because information on this kind of question has been suppressed.
Dr. Paul Thomas has revealing evidence on this question.
Dr. Paul Thomas is the most successful doctor in the world at preventing autism. Data from his practice show:
If zero vaccines, autism rate = 1 in 715;
If alternative vaccine schedule, autism rate = 1 in 440;
If CDC vaccine schedule, autism rate = 1 in 36.
[…]His alternative vaccine schedule reduces autism risk by more than 1200%. However even an alternative vaccine schedule increases autism risk by 160% versus no vaccines at all.
The difference between 1 in 715 and 1 in 36 is huge. This is evidence of a significant strength of association between two factors. Of course the historical evidence showing fewer cases of autism among older people and more among the young with a strong correlation also matches up with this evidence, since older people are comparatively ‘unvaccinated’. So that’s our third criteria met.
The fourth factor we can discuss is temporal relationship. In other words, the effect must follow, not precede exposure. This factor is difficult to elucidate with vaccines, because exposure is so early on in life, including in the first day of life in the US. This is used by the vaccine cult to argue for the genetic position, but also ensures that it is more difficult to prove that exposure causes the symptoms because the exposure is so early and rampant. However, the simple observation of vaccines preceding autism is almost always true (unless the child is unvaccinated) because if you expose the child at day 1 (US) or 2 months (UK) that is before autistic behaviour is observed. So in a way, their rampant pushing of vaccinations has met this criteria all by itself.
We also haveanecdotal evidencefor this factor, that is, parents observing their child regressing into autism after vaccination. Of course, anecdotal evidence is automatically dismissed by any Pharma apologist. It is true that when using anecdotal evidence, there are significant pitfalls to consider. People can misremember things, or actively lie. These points are worthy of consideration.
However, both of these risks are minimised in the case of assessing autistic regression after vaccination. In terms of lying, there is simply no motive for a parent to lie about observation of regression into autism after a vaccine. Suggesting to a paediatrician, for example, that a child’s autism was caused by a vaccine will lead to being attacked and dismissed by the doctor. Parents are also attacked in the media if they suggest this idea, such as in the case of Jenny McCarthy, who has been subject to hit pieces because she stated that the MMR vaccine caused her son’s autism. Although vaccine advocates state that parents are likely to fall for the idea that someone is to blame for their child’s autism (such as doctors or Pharma) this is also unlikely. The parents had to consent for the vaccine to be given, and so you would expect to observe the opposite: parents denying that vaccines cause autism, since then they would have to blame themselves for consenting to the vaccine(s) and human beings do not like to acknowledge guilt.
Being mistaken about observation is also less likely in the case of autistic regression. This is because we are talking about parental observation of children and decent parents are highly alert to any signs of illness in a child, particularly a child of the age likely to receive vaccines. I will concede however that it is not impossible for someone to either be mistaken or lie. However it is quite implausible that given the factors weighing against these that all cases are examples of lying or misremembering given the multitude of testimonies that we have.
Thus there is at least some evidence for criteria four on the Bradford-Hill list.
The fifth factor that we can discuss is consistency. In other words, if we introduce aluminium adjuvants to all sorts of different groups, rich, poor, black, white, Asian, male, female, etc, do we see increased levels of autism?
There is a male-female disparity in autism diagnosis, with males being significantly more likely to be diagnosed than females. There is likely some biological reason why boys are more susceptible to this form of aluminium poisoning that is currently unknown (or at least, unknown to me). Nevertheless we see an increase in autism diagnosis in both groups.
The sixth factor we can discuss is experimental evidence. In other words, do we have any hard evidence for aluminium in the brain in autism? The answer to this is yes.
Dr. Exley and his research team examined this question directly. They obtained samples of brain tissue from individuals that had died with a diagnosis of autism. This was the first study of this kind. They examined this brain tissue and found very high levels of aluminium in all samples.
The aluminium content of brain tissue in autism was consistently high. The mean (standard deviation) aluminium content across all 5 individuals for each lobe were 3.82(5.42), 2.30(2.00), 2.79(4.05) and 3.82(5.17) μg/g dry wt. for the occipital, frontal, temporal and parietal lobes respectively. These are some of the highest values for aluminium in human brain tissue yet recorded and one has to question why, for example, the aluminium content of the occipital lobe of a 15 year old boy would be 8.74 (11.59) μg/g dry wt.?
We can add another one of Exley’s papers to make this evidence even better. This paper by Exley and Clarkson contains control samples who died with no signs of neurodegenerative disease:
The aluminium content of each lobe (mean and SD) were 1.03 (1.64), 1.02 (1.27), 0.95 (0.88), 0.77 (0.92) and 0.51 (0.51) μg/g dry wt.
These samples have much lower levels of aluminium in them than the autism samples, and this is despite the fact that the controls were mostly older than the autism samples – meaning lifelong exposure to aluminium through non-vaccine routes would have been higher and it would have had more time to accumulate in the control tissues.
The main limitation of this evidence as pointed out by its critics is that the study had a small sample size of N=5 when it came to measuring aluminium concentration in the autism samples (and for some aspects of the study N=10). This was for practical reasons (i.e. there isn’t a large amount of samples of autistic brain tissue available).
It is fair to acknowledge this, and obviously it would be better if the sample size was larger. However, it is completely dishonest to dismiss this study because of the small sample size. This study, for example, is completely different from a survey where 5 participants answering would be worthless. We are looking at pathological brains with clear evidence of a high level of a neurotoxin in them. The level of neurotoxin in these brains cannot be explained away by saying that there is only a few of them. To have that level of brain aluminium content and for it to not be pathological and negatively affecting the cells around it is absurd, unless you want to straight up deny that aluminium is neurotoxic.
Furthermore, no-one has tried to either confirm or reject the Aluminium Research Group’s findings (to this author’s knowledge at least). The establishment haven’t done a study where they demonstrate that the levels of aluminium found by the group are overly high. This is another case where the establishment claim the evidence isn’t good enough to support an anti-establishment view and then just ignore the question. So, despite establishment criticisms, this is criteria six on our Bradford-Hill list met.
We can use Exley’s evidence to discuss the seventh criteria, biological plausibility.
The 2018 paper shows that the high levels of aluminium were found associated with glia and microglia:
Discrete deposits of aluminium approximately 1 μm in diameter were clearly visible in both round and amoeboid glial cell bodies (e.g. Fig. 3b). Intracellular aluminium was identified in likely neurones and glia-like cells and often in the vicinity of or co-localised with lipofuscin (Fig. 5). Aluminium-selective fluorescence microscopy was successful in identifying aluminium in extracellular and intracellular locations in neurones and non-neuronal cells and across all brain tissues studied (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
This is important because those cells are disrupted in autism. For example, they are responsible for synaptic pruning, which does not occur correctly in autism.
Aluminium-loaded mononuclear white blood cells, probably lymphocytes, were identified in the meninges and possibly in the process of entering brain tissue from the lymphatic system (Fig. 1).
The eighth criteria we can discuss is specificity. The idea of specificity ideally means that one disease has one cause, but this is difficult to apply to reality as Bradford Hill acknowledged. Aluminium adjuvants, in reality, are highly likely to cause more than one disease. However, the argument is not just that aluminium adjuvants cause autism, but that a specific action of aluminium adjuvants causes autism. Our theory offers a specific toxicant (aluminium), a specific route of exposure (injection), a specific method by which that toxin gets into the brain (macrophages), specific cells that are disrupted (glia and microglia), and specific negative cascades that are triggered (excessive IL-6 production due to an inflammatory response). Our argument also does not claim that glial disruption by aluminium adjuvants causes a whole host of problems, but autism specifically (and nothing else). So the theory meets criteria eight on the list.
The last factor we can discuss is analogy. If we can observe similar things happening that makes our own theory more likely to be true. This is easy to demonstrate in the case of aluminium poisoning, as poisoning by different metals, such as mercury, can cause significant impairments in child functioning. One interesting case worthy of discussion here is that of acrodynia. Acrodynia, or ‘Pink disease’ was an early 20th century disease that symptomatically had some overlap with autism although with some differences. It was later proven that pink disease was a form of mercury poisoning caused by mercury teething powders. We know from this case that metal poisoning can cause symptoms with some similarities to autism. There are also examples of aluminium itself causing other forms of poisoning, which were discussed in point 1. So analogy also supports our case and gives us point 9.
Conclusion
As we can see from the above discussion, the idea that vaccines cause autism is strongly evidenced. However, the theory is also opposed by the entire establishment despite this evidence. It is to how these two differing theories of autism are treated that we now turn.
Smallpox vaccination, as practiced for most of the 19th century, was an exercise in filth spreading. It was done via arm to arm vaccination, that is by raising a pustule on one person’s arm and then using that pustule to vaccinate other people in a long chain of vaccinations which went back to an original vaccination with cow pus. This led to a significant spread of disease and vaccine death – that could be covered up by ignoring the source of the disease.
Syphilis
One disease that was spread during the practice of vaccination was syphilis.
It was of course known in the 19th century that syphilis could be spread by sexual activity and could be passed from mother to child (congenital syphilis). Over time, it became more and more obvious that vaccination could also spread syphilis, although this was denied by the authorities for many years.
Statistical evidence pointed to the increase in death from syphilis among young children under compulsory vaccination in the United Kingdom. In 1847, before compulsory vaccination, the number of deaths was 255 in England for children under 1 year. By 1884, the number of deaths had increased to 1733. The number shows a steady increase over this time period.
[Table from Creighton’s Cowpox and Vaccinal Syphilis]
There were also several anecdotes that demonstrated the possibility of syphilis after vaccination. P. A. Taylor cites cases where multiple people were given syphilis by vaccination from the same vaccinifer, for example a case where 29 out of 38 children vaccinated contracted syphilis.
Infant syphilis deaths were covered up by blaming the mother’s alleged immorality.
Tuberculosis
Tuberculosis, or consumption, was a common cause of death in the 19th century.
In the UK and Europe, consumption caused widespread public concern during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was seen as an endemic disease of the urban poor. By 1815 it was the cause of one in four deaths in England. Up from 20% in 17th century London. In Europe, rates of tuberculosis began to rise; in the early 1600s and peaked in the 1800s when it also accounted for nearly 25% of all deaths. Between 1851 and 1910 in England and Wales four million died from consumption. More than one-third of those fatalities were aged 15 to 34; half of those aged 20 to 24, giving Consumption the name the robber of youth.
Anti-vaccinationists suspected that one of the reasons that it was so prominent was vaccination.
In all European armies, vaccination is the order of the day. On their arrival with their corps, the young soldiers are forthwith carefully revaccinated. Now, the military statistics of all countries show an enormous proportion of various forms of tuberculosis among soldiers, especially during the first and second year after their enlistment. […] To sum up, the young soldiers find with their corps material conditions of life, which, for a very large number, are superior to those of their native surroundings. […] Whence then can come these attacks of tuberculosis, so sudden, so numerous, upon subjects that, but a few months before, the council of revision rightly declared to be fit for service.
Some also believed that because cattle can be subject to tuberculosis, the ‘glycerinated calf lymph’ method of extracting vaccine matter (infecting a cow with smallpox and then extracting the matter) might pose a risk.
Leprosy
The spread of leprosy via vaccination was significant mainly in imperial possessions. As colonialism was widespread in the 19th century, one of the items imposed and cajoled onto the native populations was vaccination.
William Tebb describes the situation in Hawaii regarding leprosy. He states that it was completely unknown prior to the introduction of vaccination, but since vaccination was introduced it had spread:
In a leading article on “The Nature of Leprosy” The Lancet, July 30th, 1881, p. 186, says :—” The great Importance of the subject of the nature and mode of extension of leprosy is evident from the steady increase in certain countries into which it has been introduced. In the Sandwich Islands [i.e. Hawaii], for instance, the disease was unknown forty years ago, and now a tenth part of the inhabitants are lepers. In Honolulu, at one time quite free, there are not less than two hundred and fifty cases.”
He goes into detail about how leprosy is spread, showing that while it is not spread by casual contact, it can be spread via inoculation or anything involving piercing the skin. He gives numerous examples of leprosy caused by vaccination and travelled to multiple countries in order to investigate the issue. He found cases not just in Hawaii but also India, South Africa, and other countries. Some cases had the first symptoms at the site of vaccination.
Conclusion
Vaccination was a proven method to spread diseases in the nineteenth century, and in fact, could spread much worse diseases than smallpox (since smallpox either resulted in recovery or death in most cases, whereas these other diseases often led to a slow increase in symptoms). As such the idea that vaccination was a life saver was fatally flawed.
Currently, the varicella vaccine is not on the UK childhood vaccine schedule, but as of yesterday, the JVCI is seeking to change this.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has recommended a vaccine against varicella, commonly known as chickenpox, should be added to the UK’s routine childhood immunisation programme.
The vaccine would be offered to all children in 2 doses, at 12 and 18 months of age.
The committee has submitted its recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), which will take a final decision on whether to implement a programme.
It will probably be rubberstamped, so that they can start giving the vaccine as soon as possible. Of course, we should just ignore the evidence that the JCVI is corrupt and ignored real problems with the Urabe MMR vaccine. Pharma profit is clearly much more important.
The vast majority of people remember getting chickenpox as a child. What happened? You were off school for a week and itched a lot. That was about it. Nothing happened. Your parents weren’t worried. The school wasn’t worried. No one cared. You were possibly told that if you get the chickenpox young, you’re better off. And we need a vaccine for this?
The JVCI has come up with a model to address this problem. Because many people are probably thinking exactly the same as what I’m thinking, even if they support some vaccines. Kind of like when even many Covid fanatics drew the line at injecting mRNA into their five year old because there was no benefit.
The purported justification for this vaccine is some really rare, fringe cases where someone got significantly sick. As such we should inject all healthy children with chickenpox vaccines. Of course this is nuts. The model seeks to play up the risks of chickenpox, and claims that the risks have been underestimated, well of course, what else are they going to say? Now of course we should probably be a bit scpetical given the UK government’s track records with modelling (Neil Ferguson is quite strongly coming to mind at this stage).
The rate of vaccination injury is not even considered in the JVCI model. Even if we assume the vaccine is effective, a very low rate of vaccine injury will massively outweigh any benefits of saving people from chickenpox since well, chickenpox just isn’t very deadly (I can’t believe I have to point this out). Yet the JVCI page online does not mention that adverse reactions as a consideration in their model. Parents having to take a week off work is considered though. Because that is far more important than vaccine injury.
Even more horrible, they want to stick this in MMR, yes, they want to make the MMR vaccine even worse. The only mention of vaccine injury comes in this section with a reference to increased febrile seizures with a combined MMRV vaccine as opposed to MMR + V vaccines. Honestly this rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while children are poisoned to death. Nevertheless rare, not of concern, etc, standard pro vaccine spiel.
They also seek to justify why they want to promote the vaccine at this time, since, they previously rejected the idea of chickenpox vaccines:
Due to the larger pool of varicella-susceptible children following the pandemic restrictions and, as vaccination is predicted to significantly decrease circulation of varicella, susceptible people may continue to be vulnerable to catching varicella as they head into adulthood.
In other words, let’s use the lockdown that we did to push more of what we want: or, problem-reaction-solution.
They also state that the vaccine recommendation will put us in line with other countries like the United States. Yeah, because we really want to be in line with the United States’ vaccine insanity.
In conclusion, this rather odd sentence from the recommendation stuck out to me:
The community arm of the study estimated the quality adjusted life year (QALY) loss in cases which would not be captured in any medical datasets. This study aimed to assess the impact of mild varicella on quality of life, healthcare use and the financial and health impact on the family unit.
As we can see from the above information, a study was literally done on ‘mild varicella’ i.e. being off school and itching for a week and its effects on ‘quality of life’ and ‘the family unit’. This may seem a bit nuts but trivial, i.e. why would anyone study the effect of being mildly sick for a week? In fact it shows the deeper hubris involved in the vaccination program. All minor inconveniences caused by Nature must be abolished even if it’s being itchy for a week. Consequences? What are those? The idea of a vaccine for everything, no matter how rare or trivial, proves that vaccination is not about our health, but pharma profits and medical hubris.
I have always hated needles. Most children hate needles, but outside the superficial irritation of injection, we don’t ask why.
Children hate needles because the body knows what the mind does not. The mind knows the prick, the puncture, the afterneedle lollipop. The body knows so much more. The body remembers what the child does not – the fevers doused in paracetamol, the sleepless nights, the screech. The body felt the poison settle in its tissues, felt it leach from the injection site. The skin can heal, scab, but not the havoc on the body wreaked.
When the body observes and processes the sight of a needle, in the sterile doctor’s office, there must be a reaction. A child might cry or scream, an adult might flinch or recoil. They say to deal with trypanophobia that you shouldn’t look.
There is a reason they tell you that you shouldn’t look.
The original sin is not knowledge but hubris. Knowledge is to know the limits of one’s own mortal shell but hubris is to play god. To play god is to create in one’s image.
This creation is the specialty of the white-coat. The mother may birth children but the white-coat creates them. His creation is not what mother birthed; nature is overwritten with science. His creation is forced to bear his hubris, his role as modern day Frankenstein. The white-coat’s monsters are crafted without the scarlines that made Frankenstein’s monster so physically repulsive. It is not physical disgust that leads to the rejection of our modern monsters, but mental: bodies that there is seemingly nothing wrong with, and yet, everyone can tell from the gawkish awkwardness, that pervasive sense of offness, wrongness, unease, that fundamental defect.
Frankenstein – the ‘mad scientist’ – is the archetype of hubris, the fanatic with a plan that inevitably results in his demise. But the real peddlers of hubris are those seen as sober, sane, even boring. Those who dabble in jabs, in a standard establishment lab. Those who play dogsbody for Pharma, with pipettes and Petri dishes and cells from god-knows-where. Who go home to their spouse and children. Sit at the table. Watch the news, read the papers, go to the gym. Who would not be perceived as fanatical, extreme, or mad in any way. And yet who are the backbone of the utter, utter madness of vaccination.
No Frankenstein could create something so freakish as needlecraft.
Image credit: Photo by Chokniti Khongchum on Pexels.com
The changeling does not exist in a world of changelings. The point of the changeling is that it is the otherworldly exception, although in our world the needle-rot grows like an invasive species clinging to the rock of healthy humanity. Even still, for now, the changeling exists primarily in a world not of its kind.
There are those, you see, who have everything. Who sit in the soft glow of the lamp with their fellows. Those who have the caress of another, those loved on their bed. Who have no need for the worthless worries of the changeling.
And then there are those who spatter the patio, gone off in the sun. The thick toxification of aluminium, mercury and polysorbate 80 filters upwards, creates a heady sickness. They stand facing the reflected glow of the house, staring at the gifts stripped from their bones like the needle that tore flesh.
No matter how many words there are, no matter how many softpedal claims there are that changelings are special, we see the lack in our bodies and lives.
There can be thousands of different ways that we can feel it.
I feel it most in my chronically untouched skin.
Photo Source: Photo by Zukiman Mohamad on Pexels.com
The MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine has been subject to controversy in the United Kingdom and worldwide, due to the 1998 Lancet paper by Wakefield et al. However there is one scandal around this vaccine that has been largely forgotten, despite the fact it has affected hundreds of thousands of UK citizens who were born in the late 1980s-early 1990s. This is the story of the MMR vaccines which contained the Urabe strain of mumps – and had to be removed from the Canadian, Japanese and UK markets due to causing aseptic meningitis in certain children. This episode demonstrates the corruption of the vaccine industry and the regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom in particular and shows that the deliberate use and promotion of known unsafe vaccines did not begin with Covid-19.
The History of the MMR Vaccine
Vaccination for measles, mumps and rubella was originally introduced in the 1960s. These were originally introduced as separate doses and not as a combined vaccine. For example, the measles vaccine was originally introduced in 1963 in the United States and the mumps vaccine was introduced in the US in 1967. The combined MMR vaccine was introduced in the 1970s in the United States and Canada, but somewhat later in some other countries, and in the UK in 1988. The MMR is a live virus vaccine, so it contains versions of these three different viruses that have been attenuated via running them through cycles in tissues in a lab.
However the virus strains in the MMR vaccine have not always been the same. There are multiple different MMR vaccinations that have been used since the 1970s, and one of the key differences has been the strain of virus employed to attempt to create artificial immunity. For example, a current vaccine in use, Priorix, contains the following strains of virus:
Though there have been differing strains of measles and rubella employed, this article is concerned with the mumps strains employed in the vaccines. According to a 1994 US government report on vaccine adverse events, there are three main strains of mumps used in MMR vaccinations: Jeryl Lynn, Leningrad-3-Parkow, and Urabe AM9. There have been differing vaccines using these strains, for example, both Priorix and MMR II use the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps. There have also been multiple MMR vaccinations using the Urabe AM9 strain; the main two of concern in this article are Trivirix/Pluserix (two names for the same vaccine – the former used in Canada, the latter elsewhere) and Immravax. Although there is evidence that other strains of mumps virus used in MMR can cause aseptic meningitis as well, the Urabe strain has a significantly higher risk of this than the Jeryl Lynn strain based on the clinical data.
The Introduction of Urabe Strain MMR & Adverse Events
Although Canada used the MMR vaccine previously, the Urabe strain MMR was first introduced in Canada in 1986. In the UK, the MMR vaccine was introduced for the first time in 1988, and two out of the three vaccines that were used contained the Urabe strain mumps. Japan introduced these vaccines in 1989.
One significant side effect of these vaccinations was aseptic meningitis:
Aseptic meningitis refers to inflammation of the meninges [area surrounding brain and spinal cord], not of the brain. It can result from a variety of infectious, toxic, chemical, or physical agents. No bacterial organism can be identified in or isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid, but serologic studies often implicate a viral etiology.
It is possible for long-term harm to result, however, many cases resolve without long-term sequelae.
This section will discuss the evidence in detail for the conclusion that specifically the Urabe strain mumps component in these MMR vaccines causes aseptic meningitis. I will discuss multiple case reports and studies on this topic from medical journals in order to demonstrate the large amount of evidence that this vaccine causes aseptic meningitis and I will discuss the different article in the medical literature, in age order, starting with the earliest first. I will look at full articles when available and also abstracts where full articles are paywalled.
An early case report from Canada (dating from 1986, published in the medical literature 1988) reports a 14-year-old girl developing aseptic meningitis from a Urabe strain vaccine:
In October 1986 a 14-year-old girl with no history of measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was given Trivirix vaccine […] 26 days later […] she had clinical signs of aseptic meningitis.
Another Canadian source, an article published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal in 1989, has the following to say:
All cases of mumps meningoencephalitis diagnosed at our institution during the past 15 years were reviewed. There were […] 5 [cases] in 1986 to 1988. Four of the recent cases occurred 19 to 26 days after receipt of a new mumps vaccine (Urabe Am 9 strain) released in Canada in 1986.
There is no other information provided in the abstract about the course of illness in the 4 cases. The US 1994 government document mentioned above discussing the study states than none of the 4 children had sequelae in this study.
An article from the British Medical Journal, 1989, discusses another proven case of aseptic meningitis after Pluserix:
[W]e also hesitated before reporting a girl aged 3 years and 2 months who developed proved mumps meningitis 21 days after being given mumps, measles, and rubella immunisation (Pluserix). […] The mumps virus isolated from her cerebrospinal fluid was identical with the Urabe vaccine strain used in her immunisation.
Another case report from the British context was published in the Lancet:
In 1989, Gray and Burns published two letters (Gray and Burns, 1989a,b) in The Lancet concerning a 3-year-old girl presenting with aseptic meningitis 21 days after vaccination with MMR. Fluorescent-antibody tests identified the isolated virus as mumps virus (Gray and Burns, 1989a), and soon thereafter, this virus was identified by nucleotide sequencing analysis as the Urabe strain (Gray and Burns, 1989b).
A 1991 article discusses Japan, where the Urabe vaccine was introduced in 1989. Japan had exactly the same issues with this vaccination as the UK and Canada:
Thirty-five children developed meningitis within 2 months after MMR vaccination during the 8-month period extending from April to November, 1989. The time lag between MMR vaccination and meningitis ranged from 14 to 28 days in the 35 cases of meningitis. The incidence of aseptic meningitis with positive mumps vaccine virus was estimated to be 0.11% (0.3% as a whole) during the 8 months from April to November and increased to 0.3% (0.7% as a whole) in September and October. We conclude that the incidence of aseptic meningitis after MMR vaccination seems to be higher than that reported previously.
Another article looking at Japan, again from 1991:
Among 630,157 recipients of measles-mumps-rubella trivalent (MMR) vaccine containing the Urabe Am9 mumps vaccine, there were at least 311 meningitis cases suspected to be vaccine-related. Meningitis was generally mild and there were no sequelae from the illness. The complication was more frequent among male than among female children.
For reference, the rate of Urabe strain mumps MMR vaccine meningitis would work out at about 1 in 2000 from this study.
A 1993 letter to the editor of the Archives of Disease in Childhood discusses underreporting of this vaccine complication:
Vaccine associated mumps meningitis was one of the conditions reportable to the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) between February 1990 and January 1992. During this two year period, 15 confirmed cases were reported. […] Based on the BPSU study the estimated risk of vaccine associated mumps meningitis in this age group was 1.5 per 100 000 vaccinations given. However when the BPSU data were supplemented by laboratory reports, a much higher rate of approximately 10 per 100 000 vaccinations was observed.
A 1996 article, this time from France, sought to retroactively assess the risk of this vaccination:
Fifty-four cases of AM were reported to the regional drug surveillance centres or to the manufacturer from the time each vaccine was launched up until June 1992. Twenty cases were associated with the time off administration of a monovalent mumps vaccine and 34 with a trivalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR).[…] The global incidence of mumps vaccine-associated AM was 0.82/100,000 doses, which is significantly lower than the incidence in the unvaccinated population.
The rate was lower for the other MMR vaccinations.
A 1999 article acknowledges:
Aseptic meningitis is a well documented adverse event (1-4) that is attributable to the Urabe mumps strain of the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.
There was a mass vaccination campaign in Salvador, Brazil with the Urabe strain MMR vaccine Pluserix. The vaccination campaign en masse injected children from 1-11 within a very short period of time, just a couple of weeks. There was a significant spike in aseptic meningitis 3 weeks after ‘Vaccination Day’, providing further evidence of the dangers of this vaccine:
We conservatively estimated the risk of aseptic meningitis to be 1 in 14,000 doses (32 cases out of 452,344 applied doses).
A 2007 article attempts to assess the risk of aseptic meningitis with the Jeryl Lynn strain vis-a-vis the Urabe strain. It states that of 6 cases identified in computerised records between Jan 1991-Sep 1992, 4 were most likely triggered by a Urabe strain MMR vaccine. It further observes that the rate of aseptic meningitis from these vaccines can be estimated at about 1/12,500, and that:
The real risk of acute neurologic consequences from the Urabe mumps component of MMR was underestimated when using case ascertainment methods that were reliant on laboratory investigations
As we can see from the above evidence, there are a multitude of different estimates of the rate of Urabe strain-induced vaccine meningitis. The Japanese articles give the highest estimates, with 16.6/10,000 [1 in ~602] and 311/630,157 [1 in ~2000]. Surveillance was more intense in the Japanese context, with the 1996 study that gives us 16.6/10000 being based on active surveillance. This means the study authors are actively looking for the adverse event, rather than passive surveillance where something only gets flagged up when it happens to be reported by a doctor or patient (such as VAERS or Yellow Card). This will lead to a higher number of cases reported.
Other articles originating in other countries give a lower estimate of aseptic meningitis. These articles seem to be based on retroactive studies of hospital admissions for aseptic meningitis and may be less complete than studies based upon active surveillance. Nevertheless they still give a rate of around 1 in 14,000-1 in 10,000.
However all these articles are agreed in either the suspicion or the fact that the Urabe strain MMR does cause aseptic meningitis. In many cases discussed the Urabe strain mumps was found in patient samples. In other words there is no real debate about this: the vaccine causes aseptic meningitis. I could not find a single article dissenting from the view that the vaccine is responsible for at least some observed cases of aseptic meningitis.
Political and Medical Corruption Behind the Urabe MMR Vaccine
We are immunising the children and the government is immunising us.
SmithKline Representative to MMR whistleblower, as reported to Andrew Wakefield (Callous Disregard, p. 68)
This section will focus on the UK situation only, and not upon the introduction and use of this vaccine in other countries.
Let’s start with the Guidelines for the MMR vaccination, published in the British Medical Journal in 1988 [the vaccine was introduced in October of that year]:
The vaccine will be available from two manufacturers, Smith Kline and French [Trivirix/Pluserix] and Merieux UK [Immravax]; both vaccines contain the same strains of virus: Mumps; Urabe AMI9. This has been in use in the Smith Kline and French vaccine in Europe and Asia for three to four years.
Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: The following guidelines on the use of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine have been sent by the Department of Health to all general practitioners.
The comment relating to the Urabe strain is clearly meant to imply that it is safe for use, since if if has been in use for 3-4 years, that makes it safe, right? Interestingly, there is no comment in this document regarding the strain of measles or rubella, indicating a defensiveness about the mumps vaccine strain in use.
The ‘Adverse reactions’ section says the following (in full):
As with measles vaccine, malaise, fever and/or a rash may occur, most commonly about a week after vaccination and lasting about two to three days. Parotid swelling [glands near the jaw] occasionally occurs, usually in the third week; children with postvaccination symptoms are not infectious. Parents will be given information and advice for reducing fever, including the use of paracetamol in the period 5-10 days after vaccination. Serious reactions should be reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines using the yellow card system.
As we can see, there is no reference to the possibility of aseptic meningitis in this section. However, as we can see from the above literature, the possibility of aseptic meningitis had already been raised as an issue in the Canadian context, with cases of aseptic meningitis having been reported very soon after the vaccine’s introduction, with the two articles above from Canada highlighting some of these cases.
However it gets worse. Not only were there cases in Canada, but:
Pluserix had been licensed in numerous countries prior to 1988 but unbeknown to the British public, far from it having a good record in these countries, the vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, where it had been marketed as Trivirix, following the discovery of adverse reactions of aseptic meningitis. [original emphasis]
The Canadian Chief Medical Officer of the Ontario Ministry of Health stated all of these vaccines had to be sent back and no longer used in July 1988. Canada eventually went further and pulled the license of the vaccine in 1990.
The UK decided, essentially, to ignore the Canadian experience with these vaccines and introduce them anyway in 1988. When assessing the safety of the MMR vaccine, they used irrelevant data from countries using a completely different MMR vaccination, such as the US. This data was accepted as relevant despite the differences in the vaccinations. They rushed through a license for the Pluserix vaccine, in order that their announced MMR program could go forward as per schedule. Furthermore, the whistleblower mentioned at the top of this section, who had worked in the Canadian system and seen the harms of the vaccine, advised the JCVI that it should not be used, but he was ignored by more senior members.
As mentioned in the header, it appears the company SmithKline had no liability for these vaccinations and adverse events caused by them. Instead the government seemed to be the party liable. This situation continued; the JCVI minutes in 1993 state that the manufacturers “continue to sell the Urabe MMR without liability” (cited in Callous Disregard, p. 74). The UK stopped using the vaccines in 1992, but did not pull the license which helped to enable the use of the vaccine in other countries (such as Brazil in 1997 – see above cited article). This meant injuries caused by these vaccines continued to occur.
What can we conclude? The main concern of the UK authorities was not to ensure the safety of the vaccine, but to ensure the political success of the MMR program.
There are very powerful people in positions of great authority who have staked their reputations on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.
The success of a vaccination program, as defined by the establishment, has nothing to do with the safety or effectiveness of a vaccine. Instead, it is purely a political and religious construct about getting needles in arms. The corruption in vaccination programs is not a new development with the ‘Covid-19 pandemic’, instead it has existed in previous vaccine campaigns.
Appendix: Personal Comments on Urabe Strain Mumps MMR.
I received the MMR vaccine in 1989. At the time, 85-90% (different sources give slightly different figures) of the MMR vaccinations in use in the UK contained the Urabe strain mumps. As aseptic meningitis is a specific form of inflammation around the brain, it is not far fetched to suggest a possible link to autism (given that autism is an inflammatory disease) – although as far as I’m aware there has been no direct evidence regarding this question. Of course, the US, with its skyrocketing rates of autism never used these specific vaccines, and MMR vaccination is not the only factor to consider in autism.
With this in mind, I tried to find out specifically which MMR vaccination I received, so I wrote to my GP surgery and asked for the ‘brand and/or batch/lot’ of MMR vaccine I received. They sent me my vaccination records, which appears to not contain this information, so I was not able to confirm whether I received a Urabe-containing vaccine. However, I did receive a message from the GP surgery on my letter enclosed with the vaccination records that the surgery is a “Vaccine Positive practice” that “Vaccination is one of the greatest success stories in modern medicine” and that it “saves lives and prevents suffering.” Bear in mind, the only question I asked was about the brand and batch/lot of MMR vaccine I received: I made no reference to adverse events in any way. Apparently even asking about this basic information is too much of a question for the vaccination cult.
Author’s note: This post contains discussion of suicide. Unfortunately given the reality of the extremely high suicide rate among ‘high functioning’ autistic people the topic cannot be entirely avoided.
You can hold on to the bars till your knuckles turn white, yet to them your hands float in midair. All they see is the inadequacies and failings that muck your blood, that are written on your face. It doesn’t really matter what their attitude is: one of disdain, one of pity or even one of neutrality: they do not see the cage.
They do not see how the cage was built, how steel is gilded with profit and lies.
They do not see how those who tried to bend the bars so that you could stick your head out through the gap were dragged away.
They do not see those who could not bear the cage any more and strung themselves from the bars, who still hang limp.
What do they see?
They see the TV projected on a flat wall, the talkers united in their message.
They see a pariah, madman, fraud pulling at nothing, trying to release no-one.
They see single isolated tragedies arising from limited failures: ‘a lack of support’, a pledge to do better.
They do not see the cage.
They will talk to you as if there is no cage, their eyes sliding from the bars the way yours will slide from their face. All that you can say is premised on the existence of the cage. All that they can say is premised on the fact that they aren’t in the cage, and in fact there is no cage. You beg them to squint to try to make out its contours and they will walk away.
You will sit on the cage floor, normal humanity cut from you, and you will beg for release. They will walk onwards, glancing back at the madwoman but paying no other interest. Your eyes flicker upwards to those still hanging from the cage. Those walking past say and do nothing. Maybe it’s your time, to rest against the bars constructed for you. Shaking you look up to find a spot that isn’t already taken.
Someone leans on the other side of the cage, looking at you. You realise you recognise them: one of those who tried to bend your bars.
Well, it looks like my new full time job is going to be responding to Kennedy hit pieces in the mainstream media. Steve Silberman, the most notable autism glamouriser, tweeted out the latest hit job, “RFK Jr.’s claims about vaccines and autism are unbecoming of his family’s legacy”, at MSNBC. That’s right, the same MSNBC that hosts Rachel Maddow stating that you won’t get Covid if you get the ‘vaccine’, so I am sure it is a source of the most objective and factual information.
Now according to his twitter this guy, Eric Garcia, is an autist who is flogging books glamourising autism (before you ask, no, I’m not going to read it and write a response, I can only handle small doses of neurodiversity nonsense in one session). However, I couldn’t see any mention of his vaccine injuries in the article. It does seem like that the MSM is getting autists to do these responses; perhaps they think Big Pharma shilling is more effective from disabled people and it gives them that nice identity politics shield to deflect from criticism. All I can say is two can play at that game.
I can’t be the only person who rolled his eyes when Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has helped push the lie that autism is something new and something human beings have caused, said during his presidential campaign announcement this spring that he’s “been around at the spear tip of people with intellectual disabilities” his whole life.
I await with bated breath the strong evidence-based argument in the piece, that I am sure is there, demonstrating all the cases of autism and in particular, severe regressive autism, exists among peoples not exposed to toxicants such as aluminium & very low levels of mercury exposure. I also await the statistical analysis of such societies, showing that the current autism rate of 1 in 30 in the US can be replicated in societies without vaccination.
But it’s disingenuous for the anti-vaccine activist to claim association with his family’s legacy when the crux of his baseless claim that vaccines cause autism is the ugly message that being autistic is bad
Autism is bad.
Why do people always use this disingenuous argument claiming that autism is a disability and then say it isn’t inherently bad? Disabilities are inherently bad, as it means inferior functioning in the specific area of life affected by the disability. If I say having 1 leg is inherently worse than having 2 legs, no-one is going to object. But if I make this argument for the far worse impairment of severe regressive autism, I’m spreading an ‘ugly message’? If you want to claim autism is a disability, you can’t then say it’s not inherently bad. It’s contradictory.
worse even than ushering in the return of potentially deadly transmissible diseases like measles.
As you can see by the time of vaccination introduction measles deaths were very low. The vast majority of people fully recovered. Now of course it’s a true statement that measles is ‘potentially deadly’ since people do die from measles. I have never claimed there is no risk from infection from any disease. However, autism is being destroyed for life. Compare what will most likely be a week’s illness with a crippling, lifelong condition that will tear from you independence, jobs, relationships, and wellbeing. I know what I choose. Perhaps non-autists have the luxury of pretending they’d choose autism, but I don’t.
Before someone wants to argue that autism is superior to measles because measles can kill you and autism does not, this ignores the fact that people do die from autism all the time. Someone once mocked me for this, saying that ‘autism’ isn’t listed on death certificates. What is listed on death certificates are seizures (co-morbid with autism), falls/drowning (more likely with autism due to poor motor control), suicide (‘high functioning’ autistic people have a high risk of suicide). The average life expectancy, in a Swedish study (i.e. a country that is considered very tolerant and with a ‘good’ allopathic medical system, so it’s actually a nice coincidence the study is from there) is 39 for severe autism and 58 for ‘high functioning’ autism. So autism, at best and on average, takes 20-odd years off your life.
This argument, of course, also ignores the fact that the proverbial ‘fate worse than death’ exists.
RFK Jr.’s anti-autism vitriol
Darling, you want ‘anti-autism vitriol’ you’ve come to the right place. Except I’m an autist so I have far more vitriol for that shit than Kennedy.
Seriously though, what vitriol? How is saying ‘vaccines cause autism’ vitriolic? Even if you disagree?
lines up more with the legacy of his grandfather Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., who gave his approval for what is believed to have been the first lobotomy in the U.S. performed on an intellectually disabled person, his oldest daughter, Rose Marie, better known as Rosemary.
Honestly this is a pretty vile comparison. Please state where RFK, Jr. has supported experimental surgeries/medical treatments on disabled people.
The lobotomisers are the big pharma injectors, who steal our minds with their jabs.
The Kennedy patriarch saw disability as something to be ashamed of. Similarly, RFK Jr.’s history of linking vaccines to autism encourages parents to not only be ashamed of having a child with autism
How so?
Also I thought you were all supposed to using ‘autistic child’ and not ‘child with autism’ now as per the Neurodiversity Woke Rules.
but also to blame themselves for having caused it by having that child vaccinated against infectious childhood diseases.
Yes, a parent who sees their child regress after a vaccine, if they are honest with themselves, will blame themselves for injecting the child with the vaccine. Now the balance of blame here is a tricky question and deserves its own discussion, but (and I am going to get a bollocking for this one) I think some of that self-blame is justified.
It then goes into a discussion on the history of the Kennedys which I’m not going to discuss because it doesn’t really matter for the purpose of this article.
A controversial 1998 paper claimed vaccines caused autism, but it was later retracted. Subsequent studies have not found a connection. A 2019 Danish study found that children who received the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine were 7% less likely to be diagnosed with autism.
In my previous article I mentioned the Wakefield Gambit as used by provaxxers:
The Wakefield Gambit, as used by provaxxers, is something like this: Andrew Wakefield said that the MMR vaccine causes autism and he is a bad man and a fraud so therefore vaccines don’t cause autism. Despite obviously being fallacious, the main purpose of this argument is to erase other doctors or experts that have researched this topic (Dr. Exley, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Bradstreet, for example) by implying it’s only Dr. Wakefield who said it and then that if they can discredit him they can discredit the whole thing.
This is Wakefield Gambit Mark 2: because the cases discussed in the 1998 Lancet paper specifically referred to regression into autism after the MMR vaccine, provaxxers will deflect by looking only at MMR and ignoring both a) other vaccines individually and b) the cumulative effect of multiple injections. The MMR vaccine can of course trigger autism but so can other vaccines. The link provided in the article doesn’t link to the study itself, it just links to another article, and as far as I can tell that article doesn’t link the study, either.
The New York Times reported the next month that within a two-year period, five of RFK Jr.’s eight surviving siblings had publicly rebuked him for comments he’d made about vaccines.
So? There’s people in my family who think antivaxxers are nuts too, so what?
That’s what made a reference to his family’s history so galling when he kicked off his campaign.
So your argument is RFK, Jr. is not allowed to have a differing view of his family’s legacy than other members of the family?
Unbelievably, the candidate said at a town hall meeting Wednesday, “I’ve never been anti-vaccine.” He said his position is that they should be tested for safety after he claimed falsely that they’re not.
Kennedy knows that vaccine trials are crap, you obviously do not.
Let’s take Gardasil as an example. What was the ‘placebo’ in the Gardasil trial? The aluminium adjuvant. Not saline. This allowed the vaccine manufacturers to hide adverse events – as the aluminium triggered adverse events where saline would not, the manufacturers could write off events in the vaccine group as ‘background’ and not related to the vaccine.
Honestly though, I’d prefer Kennedy say he’s antivax.
He’s essentially arguing that mental illness and disability are reasons to be ashamed
Where has he said this or even implied it? If you want to use me as an example, I can assure you, the shame I feel far predates my interest in antivaxxers.
I am very disappointed. I never got that extensive documentation of an autism rate of 1 in 30 in preindustrial societies I was looking for.
Cassandra's Box 
