I know- when you hear him tell the story of the reason why they came after him it is absurd. It is a shame that the few honest doctors out there have to go through this.
I was just re-reading your post and the questions you pose about diet, etc.. Basically, the possibility these things differ between the families that raise vaxxed or unvaxxinated kids, right? I would like to add some info from my own observations during my nationwide study of entirely unvaccinated, (both children and adults) across 48 states.
1. Most of the parents reporting for their entirely unvaccinated kid/s were also parents of vaccinated (older) kids. And these parents explained that they'd stopped vaccinating BECAUSE of the severe injuries (or even DEATH) which they'd witnessed shortly after vaccination of their 1st child, and/or 2nd, or even 3rd, or more. One mother I spoke to, explained that she had 5 kids, and only stopped injecting her children after her 4th had been injured! So this poor woman only had ONE healthy child out of 5, i.e., her youngest.
2. The fear surrounding "diet" and potential toxic hazards is quite LOW when it comes to unvaccinated kids, due to the fact they're generally NOT suffering from numerous health issues to begin with. Some parents with all unvaccinated kids (the lucky few) were actually quite cavalier about what their kids ate, because their kids were NOT medically "fragile."
3. There is zero evidence to substantiate the claim parents who trust vaccines (because they just don't have the data) to keep their kids "healthy" are therefore NOT "health conscious" enough to avoid other toxins, i.e., their kid's diets. Likewise, there is zero evidence that parents of entirely unvaccinated kids (who just happen to know how dangerous they actually are) are the only parents looking out for their kid's health in OTHER ways as well. The idea that a person who believes vaccines are safe and healthy (and who are taking vaccines FOR their health) would necessarily be a junk-food eater and never get any exercise either, just doesn't hold water.
4. The presumption that a "variable" is equivalent to a "confounder" is false. The variable OF INTEREST could be exposure to a PARTICULAR substance, and/or related substances. And if there is a MASSIVE difference in outcomes based upon this ONE variable, (like drinking from the same dirty water supply vs. people who drink from another cleaner one) then you have located CAUSE. Process of elimination is present here, i.e., the people who DON'T get sick are the ones drinking from the clean water supply. Basically, when you remove the ONE suspected cause, and the problem is ameliorated, then you know what cause it. Here again, CAUSE is proven. And this cause is exposed even though the researcher didn't make sure that every other "variable" between the two populations matched perfectly. This is because they were just variables, they weren't CONFOUNDERS. In an epidemiological water-supply study, you'd only call it a "confounder" if people were going to another location for their drinking water. All that said, we still ask: "Can differences in income, race, diet, etc., alter long-term health outcomes? Yes. But the differences would only be minimal. And the CDC claims the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to be in the tiny "anti-vaxxer" club. Of course the way they frame it, "rich" people are somehow making poor people sicker;-) Always framed to start class-warfare, and thereby justify raising taxes to pay for MORE "healthcare" programs that ultimately worsen the health of the poor.
THE VARIABLE OF INTEREST & ELIMINATING SUSPECTED CAUSE:
The Control Group study focused on the two PRIMARY potential "confounders" that might affect a "vaxxed v. unvaxxed" study, i.e., (1) k-shots, and (2) those who'd been exposed to vaccines during pregnancy. Being that the results showed there is only a 1 in 3 times the number of ATOMS estimated to exist in the entire universe that vaccines are NOT the actual cause of well-over 90% of the deadly and disabling diseases suffered by Americans today, it's fair to say we're identified the PRIMARY cause, the ACTUAL cause, of MOST illnesses and disabilities.
Now, if we FIRST eliminated well over 90% of the disease and disability by stopping ALL vaccine use, THEN we could further reduce the disease/disability burden by identifying the OTHER things that cause problems. It seems to me that with this profound and conclusive evidence (showing the PRIMARY cause of well-over 90% of our problems) we might want to first stop the MOST OBVIOUS cause of all these health problems immediately, rather than first claiming such evidence is of limited value UNLESS it includes things like diet, income, etc..
We've ALREADY proven that regardless of the OTHER variables, merely eliminating vaccines (and the K-shot/related pharma products) will instantly and massively reduce the risk of ANY health problems. When well-over 90% of the problems go away as a direct result of eliminating vaccines (and related products) we ALREADY know what's causing over 90% of the problems. Again, a variable doesn't mean "confounder." It just means variable. Whether it's a variable of interest is the real question. And this particular variable (vaxxed v. unvaxxed) is the variable that will NEVER "interest" pharma, nor any of their servants in academia, government, or ANY of our so-called "health" agencies.
This is not to say it's a good idea to eat garbage. I'm sure that if the Control Group had compared diets within the entirely unvaccinated population, (and K-shot free as well) we would've seen that 2.64% (over-all rate of chronic conditions in adults and children) drop EVEN LOWER in those who maintained perfect diets. But the fact is, we ALREADY know it's a good idea to avoid toxins and eat healthy. We didn't need yet another study for that. We needed to know (and prove) how much higher your risk of deadly and disabling diseases would be if you DID get exposed to vaccines (and related pharma products) regardless of what you're eating. We were interested in this ONE variable.
I'm not going to conduct a study to determine if bad food makes you sick, even when you're unvaccinated. I already KNOW that eating bad food is not helpful. What I wanted to know, was how much healthier people are if they ONLY avoid pharma injections. And the difference in long-term health outcomes is STAGGERING. So if you're entirely unvaccinated AND your diet is perfect, maybe you can drop that 2.64% risk of problems down to 1%? Even less? Maybe.
But what about the 60% rate of chronic conditions in the VACCINE-EXPOSED adult population? Should we ignore that until AFTER we determine why 2.64% of entirely unvaccinated people still get some problems. (generally mild, i.e., essentially zero heart trouble, zero diabetes, ZERO cancers, etc.)????
I'm not going to worry about the MINOR problems a few unvaccinated people have (and what caused those) until AFTER we rid ourselves of the PRIMARY cause of well-over 90% of all deadly and disabling diseases we're currently suffering, and which are on a trajectory to END this nation before 2030.
Accurate Dietary information is very difficult to obtain as a variable since it would be based on surveys but the data would still be interesting to obtain. I know from personal experience when I had zero knowledge of vaccine safety and efficacy I also had limited nutrition knowledge to support my children’s health.
Yes, it would be interesting to understand whether a good diet leads to better health outcomes, IF a person doesn't already KNOW this. Perhaps entirely unvaccinated people are high IQ to begin with, so they would also know what to avoid and what to eat? But at the same time, my own study showed me that the vast majority of entirely unvaccinated kids were from families who once DID vaccinate, (their older kids) and who, only after witnessing vaccine injuries, stopped vaccinating, meaning that only their youngest kid/s were entirely unvaccinated. And the change in diet after the older ones were injured (if any occurred) could not POSSIBLY explain away the stark differences in health outcomes between their vaccinated kids and their unvaccinated kids, as these vaccine injuries generally persisted after they stopped vaccinated the new members of their families, but did not occur in their entirely unvaccinated children.
And if this is about IQ, then we can look to a family of 5 where the mother had to witness 4 of her offspring destroyed BEFORE she finally figured it out. So higher IQs might correlate with a better diet AND a lack of vaccines, but neither of these factors are the actual CAUSE of well-over 90% of the health problems suffered by Americans of all ages.
MANY studies have already proven that bad diet can lead to health problems. This was not the variable of interest for the Control Group study. There are many parents who are very careful about their children's diets, but who are not aware that vaccines are dangerous. So their vaccinated kids are suffering serious immune disorders and related disabilities no matter what the family diet is like. Again, I am still looking for any data to suggest that the only people who love their kids enough to care what they're eating are the ones who happen to know that vaccines come with serious risks, and so avoid them. I'm interested in actual data, rather than mere speculation. The Control Group study was an observational, retrospective, epidemiological study of health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated. There is no speculation. Just data and correctly applied mathematical models, even having been audited, reviewed, and validated by an MIT Sr. Research Scientist, as well as a renowned statistician, and an entire team of other PhDs.
The fact that a better diet clearly does improve health, (which is already widely understood, by both the vaccinated and unvaccinated) and so, would ALSO likely improve health outcomes within the tiny % of entirely unvaccinated living in the U.S., (at less than 0.26% of the total population in 2020) doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't already know. And the (already proven) fact that a healthy diet results in better long-term health outcomes, certainly doesn't invalidate the Control Group study in any way. It's just another "diet study" one could conduct IF they're curious about THAT subject, BECAUSE they're still questioning the premise that a healthy diet leads to better health outcomes. And the CDC & FDA has already conducted plenty of those types of studies, (including studies on race, income, etc., and whether they affect health outcomes) in an effort to find something OTHER THAN vaccines to blame for the explosion in all of these immune-mediated, deadly, and disabling diseases, which are are ONLY prevalent in the vaccinated population, and which are almost non-existent in the unvaccinated population.
Again, I do believe it's very likely that within the entirely unvaccinated population, those who've maintained perfectly healthy diets have an even LOWER rate of illness than what the Control Group study showed, which in 2020, was at a 2.64% risk of at least one (mostly mild) chronic condition in all ages. But what exactly would the point of such an additional "diet" study be, when the vaccine-exposed American adult has a 60% risk of at least one (usually serious) condition, (48% risk of heart disease, 18% risk of arthritis, 10% risk of diabetes, etc.)?
If we assume entirely unvaccinated people can ALSO lower their risks even further through diet, (which we should) we're talking about a starting point of only 2.64% risk in the first place. Again, maybe we could get that down to under 1% with a perfect diet? Even lower with 100% certainty of zero exposure to ANY toxins?
And then, should we just forget about that 60% risk of mostly serious (deadly and disabling) diseases for the vaccine exposed? Should we assume only people who know to avoid vaccines would ALSO know to avoid a bad diet? I think not. And my experience in conducting the study showed me that entirely unvaccinated children are enjoying such robust health that their parents aren't forced to constantly monitor their diets. Entirely unvaccinated kids are NOT the ones with life-threatening allergies, so they're NOT dropping dead just because a kid at school ate a peanut butter sandwich near them.
This logic behind the desire to perfectly match diets between cohorts makes no sense to me. We have now confirmed that single most EFFECTIVE preventative "health measure" one can take, is simply to avoid all vaccines and related pharma products. Anyone who doesn't ALREADY know to avoid bad food and obvious toxins, probably wouldn't be affected by yet another diet study. Shouldn't we start with identifying the swiftest (and most ovious) way to reduce one's risk of deadly and disabling disease from 60% down to 2.64%, rather than trying to prove something that nobody is disputing ANYWAY, i.e., that a healthy diet reduces the risk of health problems? However "interesting" yet another diet-study might be to some, it was not the point of interest for the Control Group study.
Why would anyone set out to prove that "a healthy diet is good for you", when at present, the very survival of this Nation (due to the physical destruction of its people) is imminently threatened by these injections? I thought it best to focus on the worst threat there is to "public health" (as well as to individual health) at this time, as well as the most obvious cause of this massive destruction to human health. And even more pressing, is the fact that the government mandates these deadly injections on children, (and even adults now).
Thankfully, we can still CHOOSE whether to stuff our mouths (and our children's) with garbage. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid government mandated injections. So this is my concern.
I get lots of criticism for NOT focusing on potential causes OTHER THAN vaccines. Usually they come from pharma. I am personally not interested in conducting yet another study to prove that a good diet can reduce the risks of disease. We already have plenty of those, and nobody is really disputing this basic fact, nor attempting to mandate that Twinkies be shoved down our throats against our will.
I fully believe vaccines and Vitamin K shot play some role in the autism epidemic. But I also see some anecdotal evidence for the genetic theory. I was an academic for many years, and anecdotally there was an astonishing rate of children on the spectrum born to my colleagues. As you say, it could be that the genetic component is a tendency to react to vaccines in a certain way or some other genetic factor, but I privately thought that those who became academics and married other academics must have some characteristic(s) that made autism more likely. So many times I also noted that the babies appeared normal until they were vaccinated. This population tended to have more children with high functioning autism or Asperger's rather than those with non-speaking autism. The typical pattern would be fairly severe problems in childhood that ultimately resulted in an odd but fairly high functioning adult who then also become an academic.
No absolutes right? We cannot say that vaccines cause all autism cases just like we cannot say that all autism is due to genetic factors. (But there is no gene for autism just like there is no gene for depression but we can have some gentic imbalances that could make one more susceptible). We see more Asperger's now rather than non-speaking autism due to the mercury removal and replacement with greater Al amounts in injections.
Excellent coverage! Now that over 99% of babies born in America are injected with the K-shot, it's next to impossible to locate a true "control group" for comparison, let alone a control group who is ALSO entirely unvaccinated. The Control Group study is the only one I am aware of which managed this feat.
Dr Paul Thomas from Portland, OR did a vaxxed/unvaxxed study. Within days of releasing it his medical license was suspended.
I know- when you hear him tell the story of the reason why they came after him it is absurd. It is a shame that the few honest doctors out there have to go through this.
I was just re-reading your post and the questions you pose about diet, etc.. Basically, the possibility these things differ between the families that raise vaxxed or unvaxxinated kids, right? I would like to add some info from my own observations during my nationwide study of entirely unvaccinated, (both children and adults) across 48 states.
1. Most of the parents reporting for their entirely unvaccinated kid/s were also parents of vaccinated (older) kids. And these parents explained that they'd stopped vaccinating BECAUSE of the severe injuries (or even DEATH) which they'd witnessed shortly after vaccination of their 1st child, and/or 2nd, or even 3rd, or more. One mother I spoke to, explained that she had 5 kids, and only stopped injecting her children after her 4th had been injured! So this poor woman only had ONE healthy child out of 5, i.e., her youngest.
2. The fear surrounding "diet" and potential toxic hazards is quite LOW when it comes to unvaccinated kids, due to the fact they're generally NOT suffering from numerous health issues to begin with. Some parents with all unvaccinated kids (the lucky few) were actually quite cavalier about what their kids ate, because their kids were NOT medically "fragile."
3. There is zero evidence to substantiate the claim parents who trust vaccines (because they just don't have the data) to keep their kids "healthy" are therefore NOT "health conscious" enough to avoid other toxins, i.e., their kid's diets. Likewise, there is zero evidence that parents of entirely unvaccinated kids (who just happen to know how dangerous they actually are) are the only parents looking out for their kid's health in OTHER ways as well. The idea that a person who believes vaccines are safe and healthy (and who are taking vaccines FOR their health) would necessarily be a junk-food eater and never get any exercise either, just doesn't hold water.
4. The presumption that a "variable" is equivalent to a "confounder" is false. The variable OF INTEREST could be exposure to a PARTICULAR substance, and/or related substances. And if there is a MASSIVE difference in outcomes based upon this ONE variable, (like drinking from the same dirty water supply vs. people who drink from another cleaner one) then you have located CAUSE. Process of elimination is present here, i.e., the people who DON'T get sick are the ones drinking from the clean water supply. Basically, when you remove the ONE suspected cause, and the problem is ameliorated, then you know what cause it. Here again, CAUSE is proven. And this cause is exposed even though the researcher didn't make sure that every other "variable" between the two populations matched perfectly. This is because they were just variables, they weren't CONFOUNDERS. In an epidemiological water-supply study, you'd only call it a "confounder" if people were going to another location for their drinking water. All that said, we still ask: "Can differences in income, race, diet, etc., alter long-term health outcomes? Yes. But the differences would only be minimal. And the CDC claims the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to be in the tiny "anti-vaxxer" club. Of course the way they frame it, "rich" people are somehow making poor people sicker;-) Always framed to start class-warfare, and thereby justify raising taxes to pay for MORE "healthcare" programs that ultimately worsen the health of the poor.
THE VARIABLE OF INTEREST & ELIMINATING SUSPECTED CAUSE:
The Control Group study focused on the two PRIMARY potential "confounders" that might affect a "vaxxed v. unvaxxed" study, i.e., (1) k-shots, and (2) those who'd been exposed to vaccines during pregnancy. Being that the results showed there is only a 1 in 3 times the number of ATOMS estimated to exist in the entire universe that vaccines are NOT the actual cause of well-over 90% of the deadly and disabling diseases suffered by Americans today, it's fair to say we're identified the PRIMARY cause, the ACTUAL cause, of MOST illnesses and disabilities.
Now, if we FIRST eliminated well over 90% of the disease and disability by stopping ALL vaccine use, THEN we could further reduce the disease/disability burden by identifying the OTHER things that cause problems. It seems to me that with this profound and conclusive evidence (showing the PRIMARY cause of well-over 90% of our problems) we might want to first stop the MOST OBVIOUS cause of all these health problems immediately, rather than first claiming such evidence is of limited value UNLESS it includes things like diet, income, etc..
We've ALREADY proven that regardless of the OTHER variables, merely eliminating vaccines (and the K-shot/related pharma products) will instantly and massively reduce the risk of ANY health problems. When well-over 90% of the problems go away as a direct result of eliminating vaccines (and related products) we ALREADY know what's causing over 90% of the problems. Again, a variable doesn't mean "confounder." It just means variable. Whether it's a variable of interest is the real question. And this particular variable (vaxxed v. unvaxxed) is the variable that will NEVER "interest" pharma, nor any of their servants in academia, government, or ANY of our so-called "health" agencies.
This is not to say it's a good idea to eat garbage. I'm sure that if the Control Group had compared diets within the entirely unvaccinated population, (and K-shot free as well) we would've seen that 2.64% (over-all rate of chronic conditions in adults and children) drop EVEN LOWER in those who maintained perfect diets. But the fact is, we ALREADY know it's a good idea to avoid toxins and eat healthy. We didn't need yet another study for that. We needed to know (and prove) how much higher your risk of deadly and disabling diseases would be if you DID get exposed to vaccines (and related pharma products) regardless of what you're eating. We were interested in this ONE variable.
I'm not going to conduct a study to determine if bad food makes you sick, even when you're unvaccinated. I already KNOW that eating bad food is not helpful. What I wanted to know, was how much healthier people are if they ONLY avoid pharma injections. And the difference in long-term health outcomes is STAGGERING. So if you're entirely unvaccinated AND your diet is perfect, maybe you can drop that 2.64% risk of problems down to 1%? Even less? Maybe.
But what about the 60% rate of chronic conditions in the VACCINE-EXPOSED adult population? Should we ignore that until AFTER we determine why 2.64% of entirely unvaccinated people still get some problems. (generally mild, i.e., essentially zero heart trouble, zero diabetes, ZERO cancers, etc.)????
I'm not going to worry about the MINOR problems a few unvaccinated people have (and what caused those) until AFTER we rid ourselves of the PRIMARY cause of well-over 90% of all deadly and disabling diseases we're currently suffering, and which are on a trajectory to END this nation before 2030.
Accurate Dietary information is very difficult to obtain as a variable since it would be based on surveys but the data would still be interesting to obtain. I know from personal experience when I had zero knowledge of vaccine safety and efficacy I also had limited nutrition knowledge to support my children’s health.
Yes, it would be interesting to understand whether a good diet leads to better health outcomes, IF a person doesn't already KNOW this. Perhaps entirely unvaccinated people are high IQ to begin with, so they would also know what to avoid and what to eat? But at the same time, my own study showed me that the vast majority of entirely unvaccinated kids were from families who once DID vaccinate, (their older kids) and who, only after witnessing vaccine injuries, stopped vaccinating, meaning that only their youngest kid/s were entirely unvaccinated. And the change in diet after the older ones were injured (if any occurred) could not POSSIBLY explain away the stark differences in health outcomes between their vaccinated kids and their unvaccinated kids, as these vaccine injuries generally persisted after they stopped vaccinated the new members of their families, but did not occur in their entirely unvaccinated children.
And if this is about IQ, then we can look to a family of 5 where the mother had to witness 4 of her offspring destroyed BEFORE she finally figured it out. So higher IQs might correlate with a better diet AND a lack of vaccines, but neither of these factors are the actual CAUSE of well-over 90% of the health problems suffered by Americans of all ages.
MANY studies have already proven that bad diet can lead to health problems. This was not the variable of interest for the Control Group study. There are many parents who are very careful about their children's diets, but who are not aware that vaccines are dangerous. So their vaccinated kids are suffering serious immune disorders and related disabilities no matter what the family diet is like. Again, I am still looking for any data to suggest that the only people who love their kids enough to care what they're eating are the ones who happen to know that vaccines come with serious risks, and so avoid them. I'm interested in actual data, rather than mere speculation. The Control Group study was an observational, retrospective, epidemiological study of health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated. There is no speculation. Just data and correctly applied mathematical models, even having been audited, reviewed, and validated by an MIT Sr. Research Scientist, as well as a renowned statistician, and an entire team of other PhDs.
The fact that a better diet clearly does improve health, (which is already widely understood, by both the vaccinated and unvaccinated) and so, would ALSO likely improve health outcomes within the tiny % of entirely unvaccinated living in the U.S., (at less than 0.26% of the total population in 2020) doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't already know. And the (already proven) fact that a healthy diet results in better long-term health outcomes, certainly doesn't invalidate the Control Group study in any way. It's just another "diet study" one could conduct IF they're curious about THAT subject, BECAUSE they're still questioning the premise that a healthy diet leads to better health outcomes. And the CDC & FDA has already conducted plenty of those types of studies, (including studies on race, income, etc., and whether they affect health outcomes) in an effort to find something OTHER THAN vaccines to blame for the explosion in all of these immune-mediated, deadly, and disabling diseases, which are are ONLY prevalent in the vaccinated population, and which are almost non-existent in the unvaccinated population.
Again, I do believe it's very likely that within the entirely unvaccinated population, those who've maintained perfectly healthy diets have an even LOWER rate of illness than what the Control Group study showed, which in 2020, was at a 2.64% risk of at least one (mostly mild) chronic condition in all ages. But what exactly would the point of such an additional "diet" study be, when the vaccine-exposed American adult has a 60% risk of at least one (usually serious) condition, (48% risk of heart disease, 18% risk of arthritis, 10% risk of diabetes, etc.)?
If we assume entirely unvaccinated people can ALSO lower their risks even further through diet, (which we should) we're talking about a starting point of only 2.64% risk in the first place. Again, maybe we could get that down to under 1% with a perfect diet? Even lower with 100% certainty of zero exposure to ANY toxins?
And then, should we just forget about that 60% risk of mostly serious (deadly and disabling) diseases for the vaccine exposed? Should we assume only people who know to avoid vaccines would ALSO know to avoid a bad diet? I think not. And my experience in conducting the study showed me that entirely unvaccinated children are enjoying such robust health that their parents aren't forced to constantly monitor their diets. Entirely unvaccinated kids are NOT the ones with life-threatening allergies, so they're NOT dropping dead just because a kid at school ate a peanut butter sandwich near them.
This logic behind the desire to perfectly match diets between cohorts makes no sense to me. We have now confirmed that single most EFFECTIVE preventative "health measure" one can take, is simply to avoid all vaccines and related pharma products. Anyone who doesn't ALREADY know to avoid bad food and obvious toxins, probably wouldn't be affected by yet another diet study. Shouldn't we start with identifying the swiftest (and most ovious) way to reduce one's risk of deadly and disabling disease from 60% down to 2.64%, rather than trying to prove something that nobody is disputing ANYWAY, i.e., that a healthy diet reduces the risk of health problems? However "interesting" yet another diet-study might be to some, it was not the point of interest for the Control Group study.
Why would anyone set out to prove that "a healthy diet is good for you", when at present, the very survival of this Nation (due to the physical destruction of its people) is imminently threatened by these injections? I thought it best to focus on the worst threat there is to "public health" (as well as to individual health) at this time, as well as the most obvious cause of this massive destruction to human health. And even more pressing, is the fact that the government mandates these deadly injections on children, (and even adults now).
Thankfully, we can still CHOOSE whether to stuff our mouths (and our children's) with garbage. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid government mandated injections. So this is my concern.
I get lots of criticism for NOT focusing on potential causes OTHER THAN vaccines. Usually they come from pharma. I am personally not interested in conducting yet another study to prove that a good diet can reduce the risks of disease. We already have plenty of those, and nobody is really disputing this basic fact, nor attempting to mandate that Twinkies be shoved down our throats against our will.
I fully believe vaccines and Vitamin K shot play some role in the autism epidemic. But I also see some anecdotal evidence for the genetic theory. I was an academic for many years, and anecdotally there was an astonishing rate of children on the spectrum born to my colleagues. As you say, it could be that the genetic component is a tendency to react to vaccines in a certain way or some other genetic factor, but I privately thought that those who became academics and married other academics must have some characteristic(s) that made autism more likely. So many times I also noted that the babies appeared normal until they were vaccinated. This population tended to have more children with high functioning autism or Asperger's rather than those with non-speaking autism. The typical pattern would be fairly severe problems in childhood that ultimately resulted in an odd but fairly high functioning adult who then also become an academic.
No absolutes right? We cannot say that vaccines cause all autism cases just like we cannot say that all autism is due to genetic factors. (But there is no gene for autism just like there is no gene for depression but we can have some gentic imbalances that could make one more susceptible). We see more Asperger's now rather than non-speaking autism due to the mercury removal and replacement with greater Al amounts in injections.
Excellent coverage! Now that over 99% of babies born in America are injected with the K-shot, it's next to impossible to locate a true "control group" for comparison, let alone a control group who is ALSO entirely unvaccinated. The Control Group study is the only one I am aware of which managed this feat.
THANK YOU for warning people about the K-shot!!!!