Vaccinate? Autism risk up 1135%. Known since 1999! Childhood vaccines Postscript: Quite a lot has happened in a couple weeks so a Postscript is needed.
Quite a lot has happened after I posted vaccinate or wait so a Postscript is needed.
See prior post about childhood vaccination “Vaccinate or wait” at Vaccinate now?
1/ 1135 % increase in Autism risk. “They have known this since 1999 says Kennedy”
Most importantly, the pharmaceutical industry has been pushed back and their underhanded tactics exposed. Note also that their “allies” have been on the inside of the government recommending vaccines whose impact has been undertested and indeed, destructive results like 1135 percent increase in autism hidden. I encourage you to use https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/ as one of your resources.
Watch this video for more about that plus a specific recommendation:
If you feel compelled to start vaccinating your children after doing your research, Dr. McCullough is saying the research suggests you postpone doing so for as long as possible. Partly because the research is showing a baby has more difficulty tolerating them and partly because over the next few years more research will be done to separate the necessary and safe vaccines from the merely profit-for-the-pharmaceutical-ones.
Matt Gaetz probed Dr. McCullough on the possibility of a CDC and government agency cover-up over single and combination vaccine side effects including allergic and neuropsychiatric diseases. Gaetz implied that “starting from scratch” sounds so big to parents who are seeking fair information on vaccines. McCullough said in common sense terms that if he prescribed 16 drugs all at once to a patient, likely there will be a side effect. Why would we not expect the same concept to hold with a large battery of shots in a baby or small child?
McCullough told Gaetz these principles appear to be supported by the literature: 1) single vaccines safer than combinations, 2) vaccines are safer if given later in life beyond the window of neurological development, 3) lower cumulative burden of immunization is likely going to result in better outcomes. In other words, the future of childhood vaccination may not be a one-size-fits all schedule but rather tailored to the individual child’s risk. Please enjoy this back and forth on One America News, the Matt Gaetz Show, June 30, 2025.
2--Kennedy condemned for firing everyone on the Vaccine Committee. Why did he do it?
"A clean sweep is necessary to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science," Kennedy said in a statement, "ACIP new members will prioritize public health and evidence-based medicine. The Committee will no longer function as a rubber stamp for industry profit-taking agendas."
Medical groups were quick to issue statements denouncing the move….
Former Vaccine Committee Did Not Follow the Rules
There must be a line between advising on science and voting on the commercial fate of the very products tied to one’s funding.
Brownstone Institute
Jun 30, 2025
Former Vaccine Committee Did not Follow the Rules
BY JAMES LYONS-WEILER
View original article at Brownstone.org.
In the spring of 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services underwent a sharp shift in leadership and oversight. With Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. assuming the role of Secretary, one of the most scrutinized decisions was his removal of 17 members from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The move followed years of concern about industry entanglement and sparked immediate backlash. Those dismissed issued a public letter defending their integrity and insisting that they had followed all disclosure requirements. But a detailed look at ACIP’s meeting history reveals that reporting a conflict of interest is not the same as acting on it—and that many of these members repeatedly failed to recuse themselves from discussions and votes where conflicts were plain.
Under the CDC ethics policy, aligned with federal advisory standards, members are expected to recuse themselves from both discussion and voting when a conflict is present. Many did not.
For example, Dr. Cody Meissner, who served from 2008 to 2012, disclosed that his institution—Tufts Medical Center—received research funding from MedImmune, Pfizer, Wyeth, and AstraZeneca. Yet he voted on influenza and pneumococcal vaccine recommendations during that same period, with no recusal recorded in the meeting minutes.
Dr. Tamera Coyne-Beasley, who served from 2010 to 2014, repeatedly disclosed Merck-funded clinical trials conducted at the University of North Carolina. She voted on Merck-related vaccine policies, including HPV and adolescent immunization schedules, without recusal.
Dr. Janet Englund, on the committee from 2007 to 2011, had one of the most expansive sets of industry ties. She disclosed institutional research support from Sanofi Pasteur, MedImmune, Novartis, ADMA Biologics, and Chimerix. Although she abstained from one vote on influenza vaccines in 2010, minutes from other meetings show her participating in discussions and decisions involving those same sponsors, without abstention.
These are not isolated cases. Dr. Robert Atmar, Dr. Sharon Frey, and Dr. Paul Hunter all disclosed active involvement in Covid-19 vaccine trials during 2020. They recused themselves from one vote—the December 12, 2020, emergency session on the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine—but participated in related discussions and subsequent votes on similar products and schedules. Their ongoing roles as principal investigators for companies like Moderna, Janssen, and AstraZeneca constituted direct professional conflicts. Under ACIP policy, they should have recused themselves from both discussion and voting. They did not.
…The issue isn’t whether these members followed disclosure procedures. Many of them did. The issue is that reporting a conflict is not the same as acting on it. Participation in discussion alone can shape how others vote. It can legitimize products, guide tone, frame safety, and shape the options others feel comfortable selecting. The CDC’s own guidelines make clear that individuals with a financial or professional interest must step back not just from voting, but from the discussion itself.
….
A system that relies on conflicted, contracted experts to regulate industry products is not sustainable. Trust in public health rests on independence and enforcement of the rules, not just credentials. When that independence is compromised, so too is public confidence in the recommendations that follow.
….
There is no question that vaccine policy should be informed by experienced scientists. But there must be a line between advising on science and voting on the commercial fate of the very products tied to one’s funding. That line was blurred for too long.
3—A study of 86 million people, a mix of Covid vaccinated and unvaccinated leaves no room for discussion
The vaccine program was an complete and utter disaster. No benefits. Only life long side effects and worse.
Yet another study. This is a “meta-study” meaning the study assembles other existing studies. More studies with more data, if done honestly, means more accurate and dependable conclusions.
Background note: For us non-researchers, let me add that research is always to include the raw numbers, when published, so that other researchers can look them up and decide for themselves if the research (the “study”) authors have correctly utilized the numbers (data) This is a hallmark of research. Indeed, other researchers in the field are expected to dig into a new study such as this and expose anything about it that is fraudulent. This is designed to keep everyone honest because the pressure to publish research is extremely high. The research itself may not give the authors any income but published studies lead to more income and career advancement.
A massive new meta-analysis is sending shockwaves through the scientific community and raising urgent red flags for public health officials.
A staggering 86 million-person study has found a dramatic increase in the risks of stroke, heart attack, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia following Covid “vaccination” with mRNA and viral vector injections.
Researchers found:
Stroke risk increased by 240% after the first dose
Heart attacks surged by 286% after the second dose
Coronary artery disease jumped by 244% after the second dose
Arrhythmia spiked by 199% after the first dose
Yet while governments like the Canadian and American government keep pressuring all to get a covid vaccine, the same governments are warning people about a certain brand of lithium battery that has not yet caused any injuries.
The company reported that 11,985 units of the affected products have been sold in Canada between December 2023 and June 2025. As of June 18, there have been no reports of incidents or injuries in Canada. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/anker-power-banks-recalled-due-to-fire-hazard-health-canada/#:~:text=The%20lithium%2Dion%20batteries%20in,place%20them%20in%20household%20garbage.%E2%80%9D
What is going on? A so called vaccine that has actually injured and killed millions continues to be promoted by a government as safe and necessary while recalling risky battery packs? (The recall of the batteries is necessary-its the inconsistency that reveals a deeper agenda.
Canada and America continue promoting the supposedly safe and effective Covid Vaccines for 2025-2026: (Tragically for us, reading the publication and its data makes everything seem completely plausible. Those who can understand how their choice of numbers used skews the data, speak out against it but their voices are crushed by the government. Many have already lost their careers. I hope you listened to the above video with Kennedy explaining how numbers were twisted to hide the 1135 % increase risks of Autism since 1999.)
4—400 drug approvals between 2013 and 2022, the authors found the agency repeatedly ignored its own scientific standards.
This does not relate specifically to vaccines but illustrates the sloppiness- and that is a kind word- in contrast to our total trust in the government authorities. Keep in mind that the pharmaceutical industry is exempt from lawsuits from defective products that are called vaccines so if this exemplifies their level of care releasing a product they can be sued for, what does that suggest about their level of care for vaccines?
Drugs released with little to no testing or feedback
FDA exposed - hundreds of drugs approved with no proof they work
A two-year investigation reveals a broken approval system where ineffective—and sometimes deadly—drugs are fast-tracked to market without solid evidence.
Maryanne Demasi, PhD
Jun 05, 2025
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved hundreds of drugs without proof they work—and in some cases, despite evidence they cause harm.
That’s the finding of a blistering two-year investigation by medical journalists Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, published by The Lever.
L: Jeanne Lenzer, R: Shannon Brownlee
Reviewing more than 400 drug approvals between 2013 and 2022, the authors found the agency repeatedly ignored its own scientific standards.
One expert put it bluntly—the FDA’s threshold for evidence “can’t go any lower because it’s already in the dirt.”
Thanks for reading. I pray for your wisdom as you determine your next steps. Keep in mind better knowledge of the research will lead to a better decision. Hopefully I have shown you enough that you will be more critical and you will use multiple sources towards your final decision.