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.
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?
I suggest that he acknowledge his bias as a bad thing (rather than good) when it comes to seeking the objective truth on the matter, and affirming his commitment to sharing the truth regardless of the outcome, and remembering that commitment throughout the research process (with all of this written down in whatever report he publishes). Also, publicly repeating these things to the people working on the studies (“I am not paying them to prefer one outcome over another”), and making sure that they have the same attitude towards the bias. The more transparency behind arbitrary decisions, the better.
THAT I agree with.