https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/vaccines-cause-autism
The bottom line is that the experts know how to solve the chronic disease crisis in America, but they are not allowed to talk about it. And even if they did, no one would listen or believe them. They would be labeled as liars and misinformation spreaders. Trust me, I know something about that.
In my case, I’m not afraid of having my medical license revoked because I don’t have a medical license. And I’m not afraid of any reputational damage because I’m already disrespected by the mainstream community and banned for life on Wikipedia, LinkedIn, Medium, and so on. Google rates me as the world’s #1 misinformation superspreader. Most of my former friends won’t talk to me. So I have nothing to lose!
I will fund a study to identify the common unique practices of clinics with superior health outcomes (including zero autism). And I’m also going to fund a robust statistical analysis on my survey data to prove that it shows a causal link between vaccines and a variety of chronic diseases in a way that is impervious to attack.
The bottom line is that the mainstream medical community and CDC will never do these studies. And if they did, they’d never publicly release the underlying data.
But I will do these studies and release the data. And America will finally learn the truth about the incalculable damage that the CDC, FDA, and NIH have done.
Why didn’t my doctor tell me about this?
You never hear about these practices because the doctors know that if they talk about it publicly, they will have their license to practice medicine revoked for life.
The most stunning thing James told me in our call today is that after he wrote the book, he was contacted by one of the most senior scientists in the autism field who told him straight up:
“We all know vaccines cause autism. We just aren’t allowed to talk about it.”
James told me if you got the top 100 autism scientists in a room and they took a poll that could not be traced back to them as to whether vaccines were the major driver of autism, the vote would either be 100% YES, or very close to that.
How can hundreds of papers in the medical journals that claim vaccines don’t cause autism or SIDS be wrong? Is science that corrupt?!?!
In a word, yes. I never would have believed this myself two years ago.
So, no point to doing studies or research at all then. Interesting point of view.
Of course, "proof" in science is always provisional; all you have to do is browse science aggregation sites daily to see that "Oops, we were wrong (or possibly wrong) about X" stories show up several times a week. That's how science makes progress, gathering new data and adjusting theories according to what we find. (Well, Kuhn's paradigm theory highlights that things don't go as smoothly as they might). It's not a process that's ever going to stop, really.
No point? The point of science is to ask a question, and have the world give you an answer. Instead of asserting your own answer from the start. “Do vaccines cause autism (etc.)?” not “Vaccines cause autism (etc.), let’s prove it.” It’s that easy.
Of course wrong answers get through and are published. Mistakes exist. Dumb luck happens anywhere statistics is relevant. Fraud is a factor. But that doesn’t mean people who actually care about getting it right can hold themselves to a lower standard.
Even with studies made to reassess established theories, they don’t go in saying “oh it’s actually x instead of y, this theory is right/wrong and we already know it”. That’s how confirmation bias happens. (Or maybe they do, but then that’s a problem with the scientific establishment, and not one we want to emulate.) You look for data that supports your ideas, and you’re gonna find it. Therefore… people will be right to reject your conclusion.
“Science”, the process, is the best tool we have for learning the truth about our world. “Science”, the word, is one of the best tools people have for spreading lies to further their own agenda. The difference lies in whether you follow the process, or mostly follow the process. Addressing your own biases is part of the process.
I overlooked something at the core of your comment: That Steve's assertion that "Vaccines CAUSE autism" and his plan to fund a study proving this show bias.
If there wasn't massive evidence already for the thesis that vaccines cause autism, I'd agree. If Steve were the kind of corrupt Bozo who would falsify a study in one way or another to prove a point or to favor a supporter (like, for instance, a significant number of published scientists in today's world), I'd agree.
But there is already a mountain of evidence for the theory that vaccines cause Autism, and it is rare that a large, expensive study is done without there being a thesis and expectation about the results. Big changes in science sometimes come BECAUSE of such expectations being proven wrong; HAVING expectations is NOT "unscientific."
Steve's wording makes sense given the existing evidence from the last several decades, and his actions and publications give me confidence that he's neither corrupt nor stupid enough to produce something misleading.
You don’t get it. It does not matter whether you have an “avalanche of data” one way or another. If you carry that “expectation” (bias) into your data collection and analysis, that corrupts it! No matter how noble your cause! “Expectations” are a subjective influence, and science needs to be objective if it is to believed at all!
You might have confidence in his character, that he won’t deliberately mess things up, but the masses will not see it that way. And on top of that, even if he is of good character (I’m not saying he isn’t), biases can creep their way in subconsciously. What is the purpose of this study, if not to convince the masses? He is shooting himself in the foot here.
This is exactly the sort of thing that we’d be (rightly) calling out if we saw a pro-vaccine study doing it.
We’ve already dealt with enough “well I’m already in the right so it doesn’t matter what I do or how I justify it” types on the other side…
Alright.
So you're in Steve Kirsch's situation, let's say. You're upset that people are being harmed by vaccines (or that election fraud is putting people who want to harm America and who haven't honestly won election into office, or some other such situation).
What do YOU do to bring the facts to light? Steve has already done a lot to publicize solid and often dramatic evidence. You say he shouldn't be funding a study because of his bias. What do you suggest?
Kirsch has been studying the topic and gathering data, highlighting existing studies and stunning data from insurance companies, government and other organizations, and other sources on the topic for some time.
It's not as if there's no data already. There's an avalanche of data spanning decades. The problem is that those in the medical and scientific communities who deign to even MENTION the data are punished.
If you read even the excerpts I provided in the post, you know that --
If Kirsch funds a study and the results do NOT show that vaccines cause autism, he'll report THAT. He's got exactly that sort of character; he's interested in the truth and screw anyone who tries to hide the truth.
The study will either show a clear connection between vaccines or it won't. That isn't "mostly" following the scientific process; assuming good design and honest inputs and analysis, it IS the scientific process. I have no idea why you think that's a problem.