A scientific review paper published January 10 documented how the CDC’s claim that ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is based on studies which do not support that deduction.
The culmination of the medical establishment’s work to claim that vaccines do not cause autism came in 2019 in the form of a population-based observational study by Hviid et al.
“However, as detailed in this critical review, Hviid et al. did not faithfully intend or interpret the data to test this hypothesis and, therefore, cannot possibly have falsified it,” the scientific review said in the ‘Abstract’ section. “We elucidate methodological flaws, discrepancies, irreproducibility, and conflicts of interest for Hviid et al.”
This is a big blow to the vaccine-industrial-complex, as the Hviid et al. study seemed to be a crowning achievement of sorts.
“This study was hailed at the time by the U.S. media and medical establishment as conclusive proof that the MMR vaccine does not increase the risk of autism, even among “genetically susceptible children,” the scientific review said in the ‘Abstract’ section.
Perhaps shockingly to some, this scientific review even implied that the Hviid et al. study was not just a work of incompetence, but rather malicious misrepresentation and flat out deceit, perhaps venturing into the realm of fraud.
“We further conjecture that researchers who faithfully serve the status quo of a vaccine orthodoxy know how to design studies to produce the desired results,” the scientific review said in the ‘Abstract’ section.
Notably, the authors discussed how the Hviid et al. study is not applicable in the real world, where infants get copious amounts of vaccines along with life’s other risk factors and environmental conditions.
“In addition, we further illustrate that the conclusion from Hviid et al. cannot be generalized to the CDC childhood vaccination schedule, salient features of which have remained oblivious to so many opinion leaders, regulators, mainstream media, and professional associations in the USA,” the scientific review said in the ‘Abstract’ section.
The authors gave some historical background early on in the ‘Abstract’ section, then ventured into the Covid-era later in the section.
“The controversy surrounding measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and autism has been ongoing for over 30 years. It is rooted in the gaslit, parent-led, grassroots movements of the 1990s and was further fueled by a case-series clinical study in 1998 by Wakefield et al., which hypothesized a causal link between MMR vaccination, gut inflammation, and autism,” the scientific review said in the ‘Abstract’ section. “Looking at the broader picture, in the post-COVID-19 era, stereotyping, social stigma, shunning, condescension, and polarization of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children have only been exacerbated and intensified. We would retort that health freedom, parental autonomy, and open, frank, and honest scientific debate, not consensus or censorship, are the only pathways to foster real advancements for true service to our children, families, and the wider society.”
Basing their public policy philosophy off their scientific analysis, the authors called for a halt to vaccine mandates for school entry.
“On this basis, we would propose a moratorium on the stigmatization and dichotomization of the unvaccinated, the vaccine-injured, and vaccine critics, as well as an end to mandates for childhood vaccines for school entry,” the scientific review said in the ‘Abstract’ section.
Notably, autism, a disorder characterized by a broad spectrum of social ineptness, constitutes a neurological condition rooted in a pathology of brain damage. One may therefore extrapolate out that vaccines cause brain damage.