This study is not useful. Perhaps maybe to use as evidence for how bad science is conducted and how some attempt to undermine good science. Or how bias interferes. Then yes it’s useful to demonstrate how misinformation is spread.
False science in this instance is not useful. It’s attempting to muddy waters that are clear.
If you disagree- please go through the multitude of studies that prove the opposite- some of which are references in this blog. And determine how those studies had error or were not factual. Or perhaps play your own devils advocate and ALSO go through this one and the same way. How is this blog bad? What errors do YOU believe were made.
the genesis of autism is not debated. It’s evolving (with science and studies) It’s most consistent understanding is a hereditary link due to the high rates among families. We know a LOT about what doesn’t cause autism. Vaccines is included in what we know does not cause autism. That is not debated. You may feel like it is, but facts prove otherwise. Please review that evidence.
I don’t know what closure you think I’m looking for (what a strange thing to say). I expect no one who follows this author to give me the time of day. BUT for the person who happens to find this article by chance- and comes to the comments. They’ll see more than one side to this topic and hopefully be encouraged to do their own research
" We know a LOT about what doesn’t cause autism. Vaccines is included in what we know does not cause autism. That is not debated."
We? I thought you were just a mom.
That is not debated? Yes it is. It's very much debated, and only a disingenuous troll would claim otherwise. "SETTLED SCIENCE!" There is no such thing, TROLL.
Proposal for Constitutional Amendment to Accommodate at Least 50 Thousand Citizen Representatives per Congressional District Who Will Actually Read the Existing and Proposed Laws for the Purpose of Ratification or Annulment of Each and Every Line of Law and the Accompanying Enabling Legislation for the Purpose of Perfecting The Law for and in Behalf of The Citizens of the Country.
PREAMBLE
TODAY It is a well-known and easily demonstrable fact that the members of the US Congress and the State Legislatures do not read, evaluate or debate any of the particulars of the Legislation they vote on.
They cannot read or debate the issues because NINETEEN THOUSAND new bills are introduced at a rate of fifty five per day and each Bill approaches 2000 pages of content.
The US Congress and the State Legislatures actually vote sixty to one hundred times per day every day they are in session.
Since no one can evaluate ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND pages of Law Speak per day, the elected representative is forced to vote “as per the suggestion of staff”
Our Constitutions call for ‘representative government of the people, by the people and for the people’. They do not call for ‘government by staff recommendation’.
THEREFORE
It is time to use the available technology of computers and artificial intelligence (AI) for the inclusion of at least FIFTY THOUSAND interested, responsible and qualified Citizens, herein referred to as AMPLIFIED VOTERS (AV) to give The People and all of Humanity the opportunity to solve their Governmental problems.
By creating a device that will enable all of us to simultaneously contribute our best thinking and most benevolent experience towards solving our most complicated problems.
What are the qualifications of the AMPLIFIED CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVES?
# 1. Who gets to participate as in the Ratify or Annul voting ?
a. citizens only - Yes No
b. natural born citizens only - Yes No
c. natural born citizens with four natural born grandparents - Yes No
d. naturalized citizens (legal immigrants) - Yes No
e. legal immigrants not yet naturalized - Yes No
f. anyone with a drivers license – Yes - No
# 2. Ages of Amplified Voter
g. minimum18 years
h. minimum 21 years
i. minimum 25 years
j. minimum 30 years
k. minimum 33 years
l. minimum 35 years
# 3. Sex of Amplified Voter
a. Male – Yes - No
b. Female – Yes - No
# 4. Competence of Amplified Voter
c. property owners net value over $50,000 - Yes - No
d. property owners net value over $250,000 - Yes - No
e. tax exempt persons – Yes - No
f. those receiving welfare / food stamps – Yes - No
g. those with unpaid child support obligations - Yes - No
h. those receiving WIC – Yes - No
i. those receiving Section 8 – Yes - No
j. those working for government bureaucracies – Yes - No
k. those that will pay a $5000 poll tax - Yes - No
l. those that have paid a minimum of $5000 per year of tax for their combined jurisdictions in excess of any received via SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ATFWDC - Yes - No
# 5. Genetic presence of Amplified Voter
a. Male without children – Yes - No
b. Male with children – Yes - No
c. Male with children plural vote – Yes - No
d. Female without children – Yes - No
e. Female with children – Yes - No
f. Female with children plural vote – Yes - No
g. Only married males with children, never divorced can vote. – Yes - No
New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19: an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis
But from the information contained therein, it sure looks like the Jews made it to target white and black populations.
"We found that the distribution of deleterious variants in ACE2 differs among 9 populations in gnomAD (v3). Specifically, 39% (24/61) and 54% (33/61) of deleterious variants in ACE2 occur in African/African-American (AFR) and Non-Finnish European (EUR) populations, respectively (Fig. 1b). Prevalence of deleterious variants among Latino/Admixed American (AMR), East Asian (EAS), Finnish (FIN), and South Asian (SAS) populations is 2–10%, while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions (Fig. 1b)."
"... while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions..."
In the nationwide (48 states) Control Group study, there were ZERO cases of autism in the entirely unvaccinated who ALSO avoided the aluminum-filled "vitamin" K-shot.
The first one would be better titled- children who attend more doctor visits are more likely to have their neurological and developmental disorders identified
I’m not sure if you are aware but that is not a scientific journal. Its page is very misleading, however it’s a blog site. The owners of the blog are anti-vax personalities who also used their blog to misinform about other public health issues. Anti-vax sources funded this specific blog “study.” Autism is an important topic but this is not a credible source. This was not scientifically reviewed or rigorously peer reviewed. It’s filled with error and will quickly be discredited
Profit from this right? Look up how she’s paid. How she’s made money off this. How rfk is paid for anti vax suits… that’s a very hypocritical reason to not believe hard evidence and millions of doctors scientists and evidence. Find a better reason. It’s not faith. It’s science
Yes. Millions of doctors, worldwide. Are you daft?
And yes I’m expressing belief in facts, duh. as we have them today and have learned from the past. What fact is your belief based on? Please send scientific resources.
I get a feeling this will shut it up really quickly...this is DEFINITELY the type of information Hasbara Sayanim Pharma Trolls HATE seeing spilled all over the place...
That's a study entitled "New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19: an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis".
Here's a key takeaway:
"We found that the distribution of deleterious variants in ACE2 differs among 9 populations in gnomAD (v3). Specifically, 39% (24/61) and 54% (33/61) of deleterious variants in ACE2 occur in African/African-American (AFR) and Non-Finnish European (EUR) populations, respectively (Fig. 1b). Prevalence of deleterious variants among Latino/Admixed American (AMR), East Asian (EAS), Finnish (FIN), and South Asian (SAS) populations is 2–10%, while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions (Fig. 1b)."
"while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions"
Now...why would this be such an...ODD COINCIDENCE...that the developers of the "vaccine", aka "Ashkenazi Jews" (demonstrably), just happen to completely lack the ACE2 receptor site the "vaccine" targets?
Here is some information Aella's bosses DEFINITELY don't want people talking about.
I’m confused how what you are referencing here has to do with vaccines and autism? Or rfk… or this posters intentional misleading. which is what I’m talking about.
Are you referring to Science, Public Health Policy and the Law?
The site doesn't seem to fit in either description. It's an advocacy site for discussing issues from an anti-vax perspective. How does that make it less 'scientific?'
The names on the editorial board list include some 'heavy hitters' in the doctor department. Are they 'less qualified' to comment because you are unfamiliar with them or dispute their authority? If so, can you provide us with details as to how your judgement supersedes theirs, and why we might be best to adhere to it, rather than our own?
Yes I am referring to that blog site. And a huge concern being that site and others sharing its information and calling it a scientific journal (which has incredibly different standards and rigorous peer review to publish). Most sharing that are not looking at it like you described- as an advocacy site sharing their opinion. It’s less scientific in this instance because it’s less scientific- for reasons I said before about what journal articles go through for publication, as well as specifically the terrible methodology and error in this specific piece. If you’d like more information on why this methodology was “less scientific” here is an even more thorough review
When people have their license taken away- they are less qualified yes. When they intentionally mislead others via fake journal pages or incorrect science- they are most qualified to know their actions are wrong. They know better
Thanks, that's helpful to have a specific reference. In the study refutation which you've chosen to buttress your argument, one salient statement within seems to have escaped the author's otherwise 'eagle eye' ... for it's empiric implications -
"A fundamental epidemiological issue pervades their analysis: healthcare utilization bias. Children who receive vaccinations typically have more frequent medical visits, naturally increasing their likelihood of receiving developmental screenings and subsequent diagnoses. Conversely, unvaccinated children often have less healthcare engagement, potentially leading to underdiagnosis. The researchers' failure to address this basic confounding factor is particularly troubling."
as the point unintentionally rates as a 'goal in own net.' If unvaccinated child visit the doctor less often, although the clear implication of the critical refutation doc is that they are somehow 'disadvantaged' by that lack, it's hard to see how 'having more frequent medical visits' rates as a plus. Unless of course, one's 'unbiased' perspective is slanted towards viewing "more medical interventions" as a virtue in itself.
Kind of like arguing for 'more covid boosters' as a virtue in and of itself. Err...
you're not proposing to defend that position at this point in time - are you?
More medical visits does not automatically mean more medical intervention. And you cannot recieve medical diagnosis (which this study uses as info) if you are not seen by a medical professional. In the US guidelines recommend early childhood visits every few months and spaced out more as children age for many purposes, one of which is monitoring. For example- it’s standard to screen for autism at 18 months and 2 years- again later. More medical visits does not automatically equal more medical intervention. But it does mean more access to professionals who job is to assist and increase early identification of NDD. This study itself even acknowledges that research does not link individual vaccines to autism. They then go on to question if it’s the buildup of vaccines- because their populations average age of diagnosis was over 6years. They either know nothing about autism- or intentionally mislead because autism among with most neurodevelopmental disorders- are present in the developmental period. You cannot receive an autism diagnosis if you did not have symptoms in early childhood (I.e. you are autistic when you are 2 even if you didn’t get a diagnosis laid until 6). Their only argument that it’s a buildup of vaccine because of the age of their population at diagnosis is on basis false and flawed because that’s not how autism works. It’s not caused by vaccines. That’s be proven over and over and over again
If you are curious- I did look at another attempt by this author to make this claim. In that 2017 study (which he had to recall due to its error) he did include that vaccinated children diagnosed with NDD were more likely to have been to a routine medical visit (monitoring, not sick visit) than unvaccinated children. Whether monitoring is a positive or negative is your opinion. But medical professionals identify and diagnose- you can’t get a diagnosis without them- not seeing them means those diagnosis may be missed. And that’s only one flaw of this.
And to add- this study didn’t even assess for autism. In the vaccinated or unvaccinated there is no assessment, no confirmation. Nothing. It’s hugely flawed. I hope you can realize the missing info, the grasping at straws
Well, your concluding sentence seems to well sum up the entirety of the self-professed 'unbiased' groups efforts to denigrate the work of those who they claim to be 'biased' ...
a 'grasping at straws' by one advocacy group... in attempt to dismiss the work of another advocacy group. Given that self-assumption of a title such as 'un-biased' cannot perforce lead to the conclusion of lack of bias... unless one's starting premise is such... the failure to recognize the existence of 'competing claims to objectivity' leads to the impression that your group's argument boils down to an appeal to 'authority' - as in 'the authorities who authorize and/or unauthorize professionals. At this point in the Corona game, such an appeal works more against your case than for it.
Those familiar with the nature of 'studies' 'journals' and medical work in general well know that articles are often 'withdrawn' for any number of reasons, and that factual mistakes within those works are NOT the exclusive province of those who oppose 'emergency authorized gene therapy technologies. To infer otherwise is to reduce your position to little more than a shoe store owner advocating for 'frequent visits' to their shop... so as to avoid the potential embarrassment of changes in fashion!
So you also don’t trust this doctor or RFK or anyone who profits off anti-vax sales, suits, books, sites, products? Right?
You must buy nothing or not leave your home bc everything is untrustworthy if it profits from you- how bout this substack? Should probably stop looking at it bc she profits and is therefore not credible
I’m sorry for my error- you are an unfamiliar name to me and I now see that you are intelligent and definitely aware of the flaws of this blog post and its misleading online page. Your choice to share information this way was clearly intentionally l misleading. As a physician you have the resources to back your opinion in science and chose to use propoganda. I’m confused by your actions
So true that those in the senate and congress SHOULD want to investigate and make sure the safest slurries are injected into their kids and grandkids. Sadly, that cognitive dissonance you talk about is strong and keeps people from really wanting to know the truth.
I and my grandchildren are losing an uphill battle against some of the policies and technology in use by the elementary schools in this State.
These are factually egregious matters, and I ask you to personally intervene:
1. Somehow, effectively prohibit the elementary school "teachers" from rewarding the students with *Skittles* and other similar chemical candies for "good behavior". These industrial concoctions can and do have deleterious effects on the metabolism of very young children.
2. Have water heaters installed at the wash basins in the class rooms for use by the children. At present the basins supply only cold water, and during the winter this produces an aversion to hand washing. And subsequently the children are unable to remove the "anti-bacterial" lotions and soap provided by the school district. The accumulation of "these anti-biotics" on the hands of babies leads to a breakdown in the function of the dermas which leads to other more complicated problems.
3. Prohibit the teachers from expressing their personal opinions in the class room regarding matters political. They should also be prohibited from talking about their personal challenges with sexual and gender identity. In place of that they could substitute: reading, writing and arithmetic.
What may seem like RFK Jr back pedaling on “vaccines” is probably necessary to get confirmed. He has a strong case to make, but calling into question vaccine safety and/or efficacy is considered heresy by, dare I say, most people. I will be literally anxious to see how he handles the confirmation hearings. If you thinks Hegseth was treated unfairly, I expect you will find the treatment that RFK Jr gets will be worse. And Hegseth required Vance to break the tie vote. I would hardly expect Murkowski, Collin’s of McConnell to vote to confirm him. And I would expect every Demonrat to vote against him just to create more problems for Trump.
RFK is not a health specialist and is grossly unqualified for that position. That is not his area of education or expertise. He has walked back numerous public claims because of his error. He has also caused harm because of his misinformation (children dying). I think he will still get confirmed, but he is not the best for that job. He is also paid by lawyer groups for vaccine harm referrals so he makes direct money off of excessive anti-vax hysteria
"RFK is not a health specialist"...This is called "credentials over facts".
"He has also caused harm because of his misinformation (children dying)"...this is called "call to emotion".
"but calling into question vaccine safety and/or efficacy is considered heresy by, dare I say, most people."...this is called "group-think" or "tribal-think". You don't want to be excluded from MOST PEOPLE, do you?
Who pays you, officially and for the record? Full disclosure.
All of that is fact. Credentials, and facts, call to emotion and wait for it, facts. I must be paid because you disagree with my facts? How dare I come to this group think substack and speak the truth?
That’s laughable coming from you who shared this piece which has none of those characteristics - scientific, not really. Truthful- far from it! You profit from anti-vax propaganda- obviously you’ve written books and have blogs on it. So I wonder yourself if your an unbiased source. Care to share and scientifically review the countless rigorous studies that identify vaccine safety? No you’re not an epidemiologist. How about vaccine safety and autism? Give it a whirl
It has everything to do with his ability to lead- this department. He has PROVEN he is very bad at understanding medical and scientific information and has by his own admission wrongly spread incorrect things that caused harm. He would be a great nomination for an environmental department: not health.
and there is no profit in pro-vax propaganda and marketing, which it truly is? It that you think mainstream dogma is the only correct view of the literature or medical information.
So Becerra, Azar and the rest had not medical OR science background - an no knowledge of health or science. they were heads of HHS. That argument for not approving RFK doesn't hold water.
My agenda is not “very specific” however yours seems a bit more specific- so who pays you? What kind of logical fallacy is it that you have suspicions that any person who refute you must be paid? Or bad actors?
You cannot fathom that others exist who do not believe you?
There ya go- if by troll you mean someone who came on this post- read it and instead of taking my points to an echo chamber decided to post them here (even though you disagree and will never admit to any points of opposition being correct)- so my comments are futile in this environment- then yes. Yes I’m a troll (but according to one of your paranoid followers - being a troll cannot be true- I must be paid if I dissent. Alas, I am not paid)
I classify a poison as anything which is introduced to the body which is not a part of its natural processes. This includes nearly all "medicines" and "vaccines", but does not exclude things which are genuinely a part of metabolic processes. For instance, hydrogen peroxide or saline are natural products already found in the body.
Pretty much EVERY component of "vaccines" is an insult to the human body.
On the note of poisons- do you not put anything in your body that’s not already part of its makeup? Are all poisons (by you definition) bad? Maybe you think that- I don’t. I can see the benefit for society of many things man has made with what our earth gives. And in my opinion anti vax scare tactics are far more dangerous than the poisons on vaccines that eradicate illnesses and protect
I have zero disclosures. I’m just a mom. I don’t understand why you’d jump to accusations of a vested interest to someone who poses facts in opposition of you. If someone disagrees with you with facts they must be paid by someone? It can’t just be you may be wrong? Or that not everyone sees it your way?
And here is where you and everyone else here diverge.
Everyone else here? DID THE RESEARCH. We all found the same thing - that vaccines and in fact "virology" as a science, is for the most part based on complete fraud.
WE ALL FIGURED THIS OUT. That's why we're here.
You're here to push something else that's based on "what you believe", but we're here based on what we KNOW.
So you have 1 of 2 problems...
Either you're unwilling to come to terms that you poisoned your own children...or allowed to be poisoned...same thing...
Or you're lying and haven't done a shred of research.
I only stand out in this crowd a bit because I went a bit further and found the JEWISH CONNECTION to everything. It's kind of important to know WHO IS BEHIND IT.
Because any REAL research done outside of FACEBOOK results in ANYONE being legitimately anti-vax.
Any "research" that you claim to have done, if that research didn't lead back to the START of "Germ Theory", and the fact there were 2 competing viewpoints, "Germ Theory" by the admitted in his own diaries FRAUD Louis Pasteur, and "Terrain Theory", by Antoine Bechamp, then your research is either completely fraud, or you didn't do anything besides read some Facebook posts (sponsored by big pharma) and CERTAINLY couldn't have done any real research.
Once anyone reads what Pasteur was passing off as "science", there is an AUTOMATIC RED FLAG as Pasteur's "science" wouldn't pass muster at a grade-school science fair. PERIOD.
Thank you for this article. I hope many many are able to read it, until it finally hits home! No more vaccines! Photos of babies being injected are bone chilling, and I 🙏 pray this is put to a stop soon. Thank you Dr Tenpenny for your hard work at getting the word out. ❤️ ✝️
The problem is the doctors themselves. They go along not to get along but to get their pay check. They have harmed all of us! Why do we continue to pay homage?
This study is not useful. Perhaps maybe to use as evidence for how bad science is conducted and how some attempt to undermine good science. Or how bias interferes. Then yes it’s useful to demonstrate how misinformation is spread.
False science in this instance is not useful. It’s attempting to muddy waters that are clear.
If you disagree- please go through the multitude of studies that prove the opposite- some of which are references in this blog. And determine how those studies had error or were not factual. Or perhaps play your own devils advocate and ALSO go through this one and the same way. How is this blog bad? What errors do YOU believe were made.
the genesis of autism is not debated. It’s evolving (with science and studies) It’s most consistent understanding is a hereditary link due to the high rates among families. We know a LOT about what doesn’t cause autism. Vaccines is included in what we know does not cause autism. That is not debated. You may feel like it is, but facts prove otherwise. Please review that evidence.
I don’t know what closure you think I’m looking for (what a strange thing to say). I expect no one who follows this author to give me the time of day. BUT for the person who happens to find this article by chance- and comes to the comments. They’ll see more than one side to this topic and hopefully be encouraged to do their own research
And frankly, you smell like a Jew.
" We know a LOT about what doesn’t cause autism. Vaccines is included in what we know does not cause autism. That is not debated."
We? I thought you were just a mom.
That is not debated? Yes it is. It's very much debated, and only a disingenuous troll would claim otherwise. "SETTLED SCIENCE!" There is no such thing, TROLL.
Clearly, there is a WE here.
Proposal for Constitutional Amendment to Accommodate at Least 50 Thousand Citizen Representatives per Congressional District Who Will Actually Read the Existing and Proposed Laws for the Purpose of Ratification or Annulment of Each and Every Line of Law and the Accompanying Enabling Legislation for the Purpose of Perfecting The Law for and in Behalf of The Citizens of the Country.
PREAMBLE
TODAY It is a well-known and easily demonstrable fact that the members of the US Congress and the State Legislatures do not read, evaluate or debate any of the particulars of the Legislation they vote on.
They cannot read or debate the issues because NINETEEN THOUSAND new bills are introduced at a rate of fifty five per day and each Bill approaches 2000 pages of content.
The US Congress and the State Legislatures actually vote sixty to one hundred times per day every day they are in session.
Since no one can evaluate ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND pages of Law Speak per day, the elected representative is forced to vote “as per the suggestion of staff”
Our Constitutions call for ‘representative government of the people, by the people and for the people’. They do not call for ‘government by staff recommendation’.
THEREFORE
It is time to use the available technology of computers and artificial intelligence (AI) for the inclusion of at least FIFTY THOUSAND interested, responsible and qualified Citizens, herein referred to as AMPLIFIED VOTERS (AV) to give The People and all of Humanity the opportunity to solve their Governmental problems.
By creating a device that will enable all of us to simultaneously contribute our best thinking and most benevolent experience towards solving our most complicated problems.
What are the qualifications of the AMPLIFIED CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVES?
# 1. Who gets to participate as in the Ratify or Annul voting ?
a. citizens only - Yes No
b. natural born citizens only - Yes No
c. natural born citizens with four natural born grandparents - Yes No
d. naturalized citizens (legal immigrants) - Yes No
e. legal immigrants not yet naturalized - Yes No
f. anyone with a drivers license – Yes - No
# 2. Ages of Amplified Voter
g. minimum18 years
h. minimum 21 years
i. minimum 25 years
j. minimum 30 years
k. minimum 33 years
l. minimum 35 years
# 3. Sex of Amplified Voter
a. Male – Yes - No
b. Female – Yes - No
# 4. Competence of Amplified Voter
c. property owners net value over $50,000 - Yes - No
d. property owners net value over $250,000 - Yes - No
e. tax exempt persons – Yes - No
f. those receiving welfare / food stamps – Yes - No
g. those with unpaid child support obligations - Yes - No
h. those receiving WIC – Yes - No
i. those receiving Section 8 – Yes - No
j. those working for government bureaucracies – Yes - No
k. those that will pay a $5000 poll tax - Yes - No
l. those that have paid a minimum of $5000 per year of tax for their combined jurisdictions in excess of any received via SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ATFWDC - Yes - No
# 5. Genetic presence of Amplified Voter
a. Male without children – Yes - No
b. Male with children – Yes - No
c. Male with children plural vote – Yes - No
d. Female without children – Yes - No
e. Female with children – Yes - No
f. Female with children plural vote – Yes - No
g. Only married males with children, never divorced can vote. – Yes - No
Dr. Tenpenny, I don't know if YOU'VE seen or read this report:
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-020-01673-z
New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19: an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis
But from the information contained therein, it sure looks like the Jews made it to target white and black populations.
"We found that the distribution of deleterious variants in ACE2 differs among 9 populations in gnomAD (v3). Specifically, 39% (24/61) and 54% (33/61) of deleterious variants in ACE2 occur in African/African-American (AFR) and Non-Finnish European (EUR) populations, respectively (Fig. 1b). Prevalence of deleterious variants among Latino/Admixed American (AMR), East Asian (EAS), Finnish (FIN), and South Asian (SAS) populations is 2–10%, while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions (Fig. 1b)."
"... while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions..."
Huh. Isn't that strange.
The very fact that ideal sources for study such as the NHS ars not used tells you everything you need to know.
I will never touch another one and will strongly advise everyone I know not to as well.
In the nationwide (48 states) Control Group study, there were ZERO cases of autism in the entirely unvaccinated who ALSO avoided the aluminum-filled "vitamin" K-shot.
The simpletons will be the first to go. The next step is to poison the food supply with mRNA "vaccines" to take out the "antivaxxers".
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH:
BREAKING STUDY - Childhood Vaccination Associated with Autism, Learning Disorders, Seizures, Encephalopathy, and Tics
https://x.com/NicHulscher/status/1882522445011144822
Mary Talley Bowden MD:
How can we trust a government that recommends all babies get 3 mRNA shots by the age of 9 months?
https://x.com/MdBreathe/status/1868845927676756375
The first one would be better titled- children who attend more doctor visits are more likely to have their neurological and developmental disorders identified
I’m not sure if you are aware but that is not a scientific journal. Its page is very misleading, however it’s a blog site. The owners of the blog are anti-vax personalities who also used their blog to misinform about other public health issues. Anti-vax sources funded this specific blog “study.” Autism is an important topic but this is not a credible source. This was not scientifically reviewed or rigorously peer reviewed. It’s filled with error and will quickly be discredited
LOL so the people that profit from vaccine sales are the ones we should listen to, huh?
What's your job, again?
Because it smells like you're a Hasbara Sayanim.
You do realize anti-vax people
Profit from this right? Look up how she’s paid. How she’s made money off this. How rfk is paid for anti vax suits… that’s a very hypocritical reason to not believe hard evidence and millions of doctors scientists and evidence. Find a better reason. It’s not faith. It’s science
Um...RFK is an attorney. Attorneys get paid for their work by their clients who hire them. No hypocrisy involved.
It’s not his work. It’s not even his area of work. He profits directly from anti vax. Plain and simple.
"Millions of doctors"? That's a disingenuous statement in and of itself.
You are expressing faith in science, I'm sure you can't see that hypocrisy.
Yes. Millions of doctors, worldwide. Are you daft?
And yes I’m expressing belief in facts, duh. as we have them today and have learned from the past. What fact is your belief based on? Please send scientific resources.
I get a feeling this will shut it up really quickly...this is DEFINITELY the type of information Hasbara Sayanim Pharma Trolls HATE seeing spilled all over the place...
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-020-01673-z
That's a study entitled "New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19: an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis".
Here's a key takeaway:
"We found that the distribution of deleterious variants in ACE2 differs among 9 populations in gnomAD (v3). Specifically, 39% (24/61) and 54% (33/61) of deleterious variants in ACE2 occur in African/African-American (AFR) and Non-Finnish European (EUR) populations, respectively (Fig. 1b). Prevalence of deleterious variants among Latino/Admixed American (AMR), East Asian (EAS), Finnish (FIN), and South Asian (SAS) populations is 2–10%, while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions (Fig. 1b)."
"while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions"
Now...why would this be such an...ODD COINCIDENCE...that the developers of the "vaccine", aka "Ashkenazi Jews" (demonstrably), just happen to completely lack the ACE2 receptor site the "vaccine" targets?
Here is some information Aella's bosses DEFINITELY don't want people talking about.
I’m confused how what you are referencing here has to do with vaccines and autism? Or rfk… or this posters intentional misleading. which is what I’m talking about.
I asked you a question first. I don't allow unanswered questions to go unanswered while you prattle on asking yours.
WHO PAYS YOU.
Conversations have a "quid pro quo" format.
You answer where your funding comes from.
Then you get to ask a question.
Who pays you? You seem to have a vested interest in this fight? And you vested interest seems to align with anti-vax.
Are you referring to Science, Public Health Policy and the Law?
The site doesn't seem to fit in either description. It's an advocacy site for discussing issues from an anti-vax perspective. How does that make it less 'scientific?'
The names on the editorial board list include some 'heavy hitters' in the doctor department. Are they 'less qualified' to comment because you are unfamiliar with them or dispute their authority? If so, can you provide us with details as to how your judgement supersedes theirs, and why we might be best to adhere to it, rather than our own?
Yes I am referring to that blog site. And a huge concern being that site and others sharing its information and calling it a scientific journal (which has incredibly different standards and rigorous peer review to publish). Most sharing that are not looking at it like you described- as an advocacy site sharing their opinion. It’s less scientific in this instance because it’s less scientific- for reasons I said before about what journal articles go through for publication, as well as specifically the terrible methodology and error in this specific piece. If you’d like more information on why this methodology was “less scientific” here is an even more thorough review
https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-failure-why-this-latest?r=tzw65&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
When people have their license taken away- they are less qualified yes. When they intentionally mislead others via fake journal pages or incorrect science- they are most qualified to know their actions are wrong. They know better
Thanks, that's helpful to have a specific reference. In the study refutation which you've chosen to buttress your argument, one salient statement within seems to have escaped the author's otherwise 'eagle eye' ... for it's empiric implications -
"A fundamental epidemiological issue pervades their analysis: healthcare utilization bias. Children who receive vaccinations typically have more frequent medical visits, naturally increasing their likelihood of receiving developmental screenings and subsequent diagnoses. Conversely, unvaccinated children often have less healthcare engagement, potentially leading to underdiagnosis. The researchers' failure to address this basic confounding factor is particularly troubling."
as the point unintentionally rates as a 'goal in own net.' If unvaccinated child visit the doctor less often, although the clear implication of the critical refutation doc is that they are somehow 'disadvantaged' by that lack, it's hard to see how 'having more frequent medical visits' rates as a plus. Unless of course, one's 'unbiased' perspective is slanted towards viewing "more medical interventions" as a virtue in itself.
Kind of like arguing for 'more covid boosters' as a virtue in and of itself. Err...
you're not proposing to defend that position at this point in time - are you?
More medical visits does not automatically mean more medical intervention. And you cannot recieve medical diagnosis (which this study uses as info) if you are not seen by a medical professional. In the US guidelines recommend early childhood visits every few months and spaced out more as children age for many purposes, one of which is monitoring. For example- it’s standard to screen for autism at 18 months and 2 years- again later. More medical visits does not automatically equal more medical intervention. But it does mean more access to professionals who job is to assist and increase early identification of NDD. This study itself even acknowledges that research does not link individual vaccines to autism. They then go on to question if it’s the buildup of vaccines- because their populations average age of diagnosis was over 6years. They either know nothing about autism- or intentionally mislead because autism among with most neurodevelopmental disorders- are present in the developmental period. You cannot receive an autism diagnosis if you did not have symptoms in early childhood (I.e. you are autistic when you are 2 even if you didn’t get a diagnosis laid until 6). Their only argument that it’s a buildup of vaccine because of the age of their population at diagnosis is on basis false and flawed because that’s not how autism works. It’s not caused by vaccines. That’s be proven over and over and over again
If you are curious- I did look at another attempt by this author to make this claim. In that 2017 study (which he had to recall due to its error) he did include that vaccinated children diagnosed with NDD were more likely to have been to a routine medical visit (monitoring, not sick visit) than unvaccinated children. Whether monitoring is a positive or negative is your opinion. But medical professionals identify and diagnose- you can’t get a diagnosis without them- not seeing them means those diagnosis may be missed. And that’s only one flaw of this.
And to add- this study didn’t even assess for autism. In the vaccinated or unvaccinated there is no assessment, no confirmation. Nothing. It’s hugely flawed. I hope you can realize the missing info, the grasping at straws
Well, your concluding sentence seems to well sum up the entirety of the self-professed 'unbiased' groups efforts to denigrate the work of those who they claim to be 'biased' ...
a 'grasping at straws' by one advocacy group... in attempt to dismiss the work of another advocacy group. Given that self-assumption of a title such as 'un-biased' cannot perforce lead to the conclusion of lack of bias... unless one's starting premise is such... the failure to recognize the existence of 'competing claims to objectivity' leads to the impression that your group's argument boils down to an appeal to 'authority' - as in 'the authorities who authorize and/or unauthorize professionals. At this point in the Corona game, such an appeal works more against your case than for it.
Those familiar with the nature of 'studies' 'journals' and medical work in general well know that articles are often 'withdrawn' for any number of reasons, and that factual mistakes within those works are NOT the exclusive province of those who oppose 'emergency authorized gene therapy technologies. To infer otherwise is to reduce your position to little more than a shoe store owner advocating for 'frequent visits' to their shop... so as to avoid the potential embarrassment of changes in fashion!
Anyone that doesn't profit from "vaccines" is instantly more credible than those that do.
So you also don’t trust this doctor or RFK or anyone who profits off anti-vax sales, suits, books, sites, products? Right?
You must buy nothing or not leave your home bc everything is untrustworthy if it profits from you- how bout this substack? Should probably stop looking at it bc she profits and is therefore not credible
That’s terrible logic. Have a better reason
I’m sorry for my error- you are an unfamiliar name to me and I now see that you are intelligent and definitely aware of the flaws of this blog post and its misleading online page. Your choice to share information this way was clearly intentionally l misleading. As a physician you have the resources to back your opinion in science and chose to use propoganda. I’m confused by your actions
So true that those in the senate and congress SHOULD want to investigate and make sure the safest slurries are injected into their kids and grandkids. Sadly, that cognitive dissonance you talk about is strong and keeps people from really wanting to know the truth.
The truth is, everyone in your government is an AIPAC Jew tool.
January 25, 2025
_______ ________ , Governor of _____
Office of the Governor
123 East Locust Street, 3rd Floor
Capitol City, State _____
Esteemed Governor __________,
Greetings and Salutations !
I and my grandchildren are losing an uphill battle against some of the policies and technology in use by the elementary schools in this State.
These are factually egregious matters, and I ask you to personally intervene:
1. Somehow, effectively prohibit the elementary school "teachers" from rewarding the students with *Skittles* and other similar chemical candies for "good behavior". These industrial concoctions can and do have deleterious effects on the metabolism of very young children.
2. Have water heaters installed at the wash basins in the class rooms for use by the children. At present the basins supply only cold water, and during the winter this produces an aversion to hand washing. And subsequently the children are unable to remove the "anti-bacterial" lotions and soap provided by the school district. The accumulation of "these anti-biotics" on the hands of babies leads to a breakdown in the function of the dermas which leads to other more complicated problems.
3. Prohibit the teachers from expressing their personal opinions in the class room regarding matters political. They should also be prohibited from talking about their personal challenges with sexual and gender identity. In place of that they could substitute: reading, writing and arithmetic.
Sincerely and respectfully,
What may seem like RFK Jr back pedaling on “vaccines” is probably necessary to get confirmed. He has a strong case to make, but calling into question vaccine safety and/or efficacy is considered heresy by, dare I say, most people. I will be literally anxious to see how he handles the confirmation hearings. If you thinks Hegseth was treated unfairly, I expect you will find the treatment that RFK Jr gets will be worse. And Hegseth required Vance to break the tie vote. I would hardly expect Murkowski, Collin’s of McConnell to vote to confirm him. And I would expect every Demonrat to vote against him just to create more problems for Trump.
RFK is not a health specialist and is grossly unqualified for that position. That is not his area of education or expertise. He has walked back numerous public claims because of his error. He has also caused harm because of his misinformation (children dying). I think he will still get confirmed, but he is not the best for that job. He is also paid by lawyer groups for vaccine harm referrals so he makes direct money off of excessive anti-vax hysteria
I dont think that Donald Trump cares what you think.
I agree. He certainly does not care
"RFK is not a health specialist"...This is called "credentials over facts".
"He has also caused harm because of his misinformation (children dying)"...this is called "call to emotion".
"but calling into question vaccine safety and/or efficacy is considered heresy by, dare I say, most people."...this is called "group-think" or "tribal-think". You don't want to be excluded from MOST PEOPLE, do you?
Who pays you, officially and for the record? Full disclosure.
All of that is fact. Credentials, and facts, call to emotion and wait for it, facts. I must be paid because you disagree with my facts? How dare I come to this group think substack and speak the truth?
WHO.
PAYS.
YOU.
FULL.
DISCLOSURE.
Because you're acting like you have a VESTED INTEREST IN THIS FIGHT, and that VESTED INTEREST SEEMS TO ALIGN WITH BIG PHARMA.
Who pays you? You seem to have a vested interest in this fight? And you vested interest seems to align with anti-vax
And why does everyone ONLY want to discredit him because he wants scientific, TRUTHFUL investigation into vaccine safety??
What does that REALLY have to do with his ability to lead HHS.
That’s laughable coming from you who shared this piece which has none of those characteristics - scientific, not really. Truthful- far from it! You profit from anti-vax propaganda- obviously you’ve written books and have blogs on it. So I wonder yourself if your an unbiased source. Care to share and scientifically review the countless rigorous studies that identify vaccine safety? No you’re not an epidemiologist. How about vaccine safety and autism? Give it a whirl
It has everything to do with his ability to lead- this department. He has PROVEN he is very bad at understanding medical and scientific information and has by his own admission wrongly spread incorrect things that caused harm. He would be a great nomination for an environmental department: not health.
and there is no profit in pro-vax propaganda and marketing, which it truly is? It that you think mainstream dogma is the only correct view of the literature or medical information.
So Becerra, Azar and the rest had not medical OR science background - an no knowledge of health or science. they were heads of HHS. That argument for not approving RFK doesn't hold water.
Aella here is clearly paid by someone to be here and push this very specific agenda.
My agenda is not “very specific” however yours seems a bit more specific- so who pays you? What kind of logical fallacy is it that you have suspicions that any person who refute you must be paid? Or bad actors?
You cannot fathom that others exist who do not believe you?
no followers. no posts. clearly a troll
There ya go- if by troll you mean someone who came on this post- read it and instead of taking my points to an echo chamber decided to post them here (even though you disagree and will never admit to any points of opposition being correct)- so my comments are futile in this environment- then yes. Yes I’m a troll (but according to one of your paranoid followers - being a troll cannot be true- I must be paid if I dissent. Alas, I am not paid)
Maybe you should back your opinions with facts. Start by reading this:
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/anti-rfk-article-in-global-development
And more importantly this. Do you realize how FEW HHS directors were physicians? Read this
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/most-dhhs-secretaries-were-politicians
Here are the professions of the last ten Secretaries of the DHHS:
Becerra: lawyer, politician
Azar: lawyer, Pharma CEO
Price: physician
Burwell: bureaucrat, worked for BMGF
Sibelius: politician, lobbyist
Leavitt: politician
Thompson: politician
Shalala: politician
Sullivan: physician
Bowen: physician, politician
"Anti-vax hysteria"?
Wow. Propaganda much?
Where you out of? Tel Aviv?
All vaccines are poisons. Period.
What definition are using to classify it as poison. Just curious so I can debunk that or put your hat back on with that bias as well
I classify a poison as anything which is introduced to the body which is not a part of its natural processes. This includes nearly all "medicines" and "vaccines", but does not exclude things which are genuinely a part of metabolic processes. For instance, hydrogen peroxide or saline are natural products already found in the body.
Pretty much EVERY component of "vaccines" is an insult to the human body.
Full disclosure - what is your dog in this fight?
It seems rather pronounced and directed.
On the note of poisons- do you not put anything in your body that’s not already part of its makeup? Are all poisons (by you definition) bad? Maybe you think that- I don’t. I can see the benefit for society of many things man has made with what our earth gives. And in my opinion anti vax scare tactics are far more dangerous than the poisons on vaccines that eradicate illnesses and protect
Good luck with that.
There has never been a single "illness" that has been "eradicated" by any vaccine. EVER. You are 100% unable to back up this nonsense.
I have zero disclosures. I’m just a mom. I don’t understand why you’d jump to accusations of a vested interest to someone who poses facts in opposition of you. If someone disagrees with you with facts they must be paid by someone? It can’t just be you may be wrong? Or that not everyone sees it your way?
So quiet now...
Refreshing, isn't it?
Bosses must have said "Back off."
And here is where you and everyone else here diverge.
Everyone else here? DID THE RESEARCH. We all found the same thing - that vaccines and in fact "virology" as a science, is for the most part based on complete fraud.
WE ALL FIGURED THIS OUT. That's why we're here.
You're here to push something else that's based on "what you believe", but we're here based on what we KNOW.
So you have 1 of 2 problems...
Either you're unwilling to come to terms that you poisoned your own children...or allowed to be poisoned...same thing...
Or you're lying and haven't done a shred of research.
I only stand out in this crowd a bit because I went a bit further and found the JEWISH CONNECTION to everything. It's kind of important to know WHO IS BEHIND IT.
Because any REAL research done outside of FACEBOOK results in ANYONE being legitimately anti-vax.
Any "research" that you claim to have done, if that research didn't lead back to the START of "Germ Theory", and the fact there were 2 competing viewpoints, "Germ Theory" by the admitted in his own diaries FRAUD Louis Pasteur, and "Terrain Theory", by Antoine Bechamp, then your research is either completely fraud, or you didn't do anything besides read some Facebook posts (sponsored by big pharma) and CERTAINLY couldn't have done any real research.
Once anyone reads what Pasteur was passing off as "science", there is an AUTOMATIC RED FLAG as Pasteur's "science" wouldn't pass muster at a grade-school science fair. PERIOD.
And yet for school attendance they are still forced! In CA anyway. We are leaving before our grands are in first grade.
Signed the petition to CA senators even though they are bought and paid for.
Thank you for this article. I hope many many are able to read it, until it finally hits home! No more vaccines! Photos of babies being injected are bone chilling, and I 🙏 pray this is put to a stop soon. Thank you Dr Tenpenny for your hard work at getting the word out. ❤️ ✝️
This study is very significant. Thank you for posting.
The problem is the doctors themselves. They go along not to get along but to get their pay check. They have harmed all of us! Why do we continue to pay homage?
Thanks so much for the opportunity to complete the editable online form to send emails to senators!
With gratitude and continued prayers.