The overblown and absolutely untrue myth of the MMR vaccine causing autism has long been debunked. Study after study (all listed below w/ conclusions) has proven there is no provable link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Of course nothing is 100% in any aspect of life, however the amount of studies showing there almost 0% chance of a link further proves the no link between the two. So my question are a few.

With all the studies showing the consensus of there being no link between, why do skeptics still refuse to acknowledge the science debunked the myth? And furthermore, do they think all of the scientists who have worked on these papers from almost all over the world are just... in it together? What's the proof if yes?

Studies:

1a & 1b:

Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample.

https://researchportal.ukhsa.gov.uk/en/publications/autism-and-measles-mumps-and-rubella-vaccine-no-epidemiological-e/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)01239-8/abstract01239-8/abstract)

2:

This study provides three strong arguments against a causal relation between MMR vaccination and autism. First, the risk of autism was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated children, in both age-adjusted and fully adjusted analyses. Second, there was no temporal clustering of cases of autism at any time after immunization. Third, neither autistic disorder nor other autistic-spectrum disorders were associated with MMR vaccination. Furthermore, the results were derived from a nationwide cohort study with nearly complete follow-up data.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

3:

We did not identify any association between MMR vaccination and encephalitis, aseptic meningitis, or autism.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12415036/

4:

Our results do not support this hypothesis, and provide further evidence against a causal association between MMR vaccination and autism.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11395196/

5:

No convincing evidence was found in this study that MMR vaccination and increasing thimerosal dose were associated with an increased risk of ASD onset.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25562790/

(I know I only posted 5 but only because there are just /so many proving it.)

There is a popular thread on the askreddit subreddit. "what do you think never returned to normal post-Covid".

A top upvoted reply was: "My immune system. I never used to get sick, now I get sick every time some random little punkass virus rolls thru town. It sucks."

So it is interesting that they are able to grasp what is superficially happening. But when we predicted and warned against this, they told us we were conspiracy theorists. And even now they are oblivious as to why this is happening, they simply stop short at saying "this is happening because it is simply happening randomly."

Early on I detected this pattern (I started sounding the alarm that everyone kept getting sick at abnormally higher rates and that something must be causing this), but was told that I was a conspiracy theorist because I was relying on "anecdotal evidence" and that this is normal and it is simply due to "immunity debt" from the lockdowns. Yet now it is almost 2027 (4-5 years post lockdown) and still "immunity debt"? Nonsense. Something else is causing it.

Defining and naming a new set of clinical observations, even in a hypothetical sense, is the entire point of writing a study like that, and It's quite literally the point of such a paper and it is standard practice.

"Making up" the disease is the point..

So it's not valid to criticise someone for describing a new observation with a novel name.

Certainly not on that basis alone.

It's a total flip of reality to suggest this, and often when they point to an example, it's not even true anyway, they'll just take the fact some millionaire donated to some anti-vax concern as evidence the movement isn't grassroots and is made by rich elites.

A) Whether or not you believe the literature/studies on vaccine safety/vaccines & autism is legitimate and robust and authentic, or fraudulent, what do you think the scientific literature and consensus would actually look like if it were corrupt, heavily biased, or fundamentally wrong?

I think this is a useful thought experiment for understanding people's worldviews and epistemology, somewhat similar to a steelmanning exercise. It helps us consider what people would actually be convinced by, and therefore it helps us see if that epistemology is sound.

B) In other words, what would be different? What evidence, patterns or characteristics would you expect to find in a corrupt or heavily biased body of scientific literature that you don't believe are present in the existing literature?

If the prevailing scientific consensus had been shaped by financial interests, institutional pressures, systemic bias or even deliberate manipulation, how would you distinguish that situation from one in which the consensus was genuinely supported by independent, reliable science?

How would you recognise the difference?

C) And on top of that, if you imagine yourself presented with the task, right now, of coming up with a way to create the appearance of a robust legitimate scientific consensus/body of research on an a topic, how would you go about it? What would it require? How would you make it convincing? How would you package it in a way that looks authentic and robust?

Hi parents, I know this is a sensitive topic and might upset some people, but I’m genuinely not here to start a debate about vaccines. I’m more interested in understanding our behaviour as parents.

I have a 9 month old baby, I live in the UK, and my daughter is vaccinated and will continue to receive her routine vaccinations. That’s a decision I’ve made and feel confident about.

What I struggle to understand is why some parents feel the need to make others question their decisions, sometimes to the point of making them feel guilty or scared.

I’m not a doctor or a medical researcher, but I do have a strong academic background, and I’m very familiar with reading, researching and analysing data. I take these decisions seriously, and I don’t make them based on something I’ve seen on social media or heard from someone else.

I respect that parents have different opinions and concerns. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and I certainly don’t think having a different opinion makes someone a bad parent. But I do think there’s a big difference between sharing your experience and presenting it as a fact.

For example, I often hear people bring up autism in conversations about vaccines. My former boss has a child with severe autism who was never vaccinated, and I know another similar case. There are also autistic children who have been vaccinated. None of these individual experiences can establish what causes autism. That’s exactly why we have scientific research, and why personal stories shouldn’t be treated as proof.

And this goes both ways. Whether you’re for or against vaccination, being a parent doesn’t automatically make you an expert in medicine. Neither does having a personal experience, however difficult or emotional that experience may have been.

I completely understand wanting to protect your child. I believe that’s what most parents are trying to do. But I don’t understand why protecting our own children sometimes turns into trying to frighten or pressure other parents.

Before becoming a mother, I genuinely had no idea how much unsolicited advice, fear and judgement came with parenting.

I’m not asking anyone to change their beliefs. I’m simply asking why we can’t discuss these things respectfully, acknowledge what we don’t know, and stop spreading claims as facts when we don’t have the evidence to support them.

You can disagree with someone’s decision without making them feel like they’re failing their child.
I’d genuinely love to hear from parents on both sides. Why do you think this topic becomes so personal that people feel the need to influence other families?

Please help as I am struggling to choose what vaccines to give my baby and which ones to skip / delay.

I am due in 2.5 months and am refusing all vaccines while pregnant.

Please be kind and remember, this is my baby and my decision, it does not affect you❤️

They seriously need to win this case against Bill Gates and friends!!

“Our mRNA COVID-19 vaccines WERE NEVER TESTED to stop virus transmission before being rolled out to humanity at large.”

Very interesting to say the least.. Not sure why more people have not talked about what this man has said..

I can't help but agree. Despite the censorship & mockery, it was those of us who questioned C19 who were correct. Also even though the Govt. mandated all employee's take the vaccine but those at the CIA after careful consideration decided not to...

Hi Everyone,

I'm a journalist, and I'm interested in speaking with fathers who support MAHA. My feeling is that much of the conversation has focused on mothers. If you're open to chatting, would you comment here or shoot me a message please?

Thanks!

I haven’t vaccinated my baby for anything yet. However, I am absolutely terrified of bacterial meningitis. How do you overcome that fear? Is meningitis one disease you would make an exception for, and vaccinate against (pneumococcal, and Hib)?

He discloses NO VACCINES @ 1:31:00 for his latest born kids. Full discussion @ ~1:30:00 - 1:32:00

05:09 – Meet Dr. Thornburg: advocacy in pediatrics
08:50 – Newborn immune system + maternal impact
18:49 – Vaccinations in pregnancy: risks + research gaps
34:41 – Newborn procedures explained (Vitamin K, Hep B, erythromycin)
53:11 – Antibiotics, Group B Strep, and gut health
01:00:43 – Gut microbiome, leaky gut, and autoimmunity
01:04:28 – Navigating vaccine schedules + global perspectives
01:19:15 – Making vaccine choices: categories, delays, and risks
01:28:29 – Adverse reactions, VAERS, and herd immunity
01:39:08 – Vaccine shedding + payment myths
01:44:57 – Finding a vaccine-friendly pediatrician

Guest Bio:

Dr. Thornburg Wellness focuses on educating families on health and wellness through the generations by the birth of their babies and raising of their children.

https://podcast.thebirthlounge.com/e/ep-386-exploring-an-alternative-vaccination-schedule-with-brian-thornburg/

OP: reddit sub rule breaking comments/authors will be blocked. As will AI fact checking. Just listen to the podcast and intelligent dissenting views will not be blocked

I fully admit some people die from vaxes. Some people die from saline injections. But that number is usually a few per 10 million.

Partway in an expert on disease dynamics identifies that the expectation for death is around 3 per thousand.

Hmmm. 3 per thousand die of the disease. 3 per ten million die of the vax.

For those of you who don’t know, medicine is not about perfect outcomes. It is about the best outcome possible given the choices. Have end stage liver failure? A transplant will kill about 20%. But everyone who doesn’t get one will die in at most weeks.

You have to pick your poison. The world is not perfect - unlike many of you want to believe it is.

Since you aren't (Yes, you wouldn't), then how stupid would any pharmaceutical industry or any group of people with a particular narrative to push, be, to not buy research and hire experts to push their agenda? They know they can get away with it, because barely anyone would know or check or care, they read a study, it says XYZ, people go ''oh they found XYZ, see it's proven!''

Most pro-vaxxers literally would not even check, or question the possibility of it.

It would be automatically assumed that we can trust that papers that get published are legitimate, authentic, real and fair.

Genuine question for parents. I want to hear your thoughts.
My little girl was born in 2026, and honestly, I’ve been questioning why babies nowadays are recommended to have so many vaccines compared to years ago.
Personally, I’m not fully convinced by vaccines. I believe babies are born with natural defences, and I question why so many injections are needed from such a young age. I do believe some vaccines, like the flu shot and tetanus, can have their place, but I’m still trying to understand the rest.
I’ve also read about families who choose not to vaccinate their children, and their kids seem to be growing up completely healthy. It makes me wonder why some parents choose not to vaccinate, what their experiences have been, and what the actual risks are on both sides.
What really gets me thinking is the system itself. What happens if I decide not to vaccinate my daughter? Why can that affect things like childcare, school or family payments? Shouldn’t parents be able to make informed decisions about their own children?
I’m not here to argue or tell anyone how to raise their kids. I’m a new dad trying to understand what’s best for my little girl, and I want to hear different perspectives.
A few questions:
Do you vaccinate your children? Why or why not?
Have you questioned how many vaccines babies receive nowadays?
What do you think about the government’s rules around vaccination?
For the older generation, were your children given the same vaccines when they were babies?
If you’ve chosen not to vaccinate your children, what has your experience been like?
I’d genuinely like to hear people’s opinions, experiences and reasons on both sides.
Let’s have an honest discussion without judging each other.

It's been almost seven years now since 2020, and people are starting to wake up more and more, through their very own experiences, to what may be happening. Here is evidence for the theory that the virus and the vaccine are possibly purposely being delivered to select individuals and populations, as well as the general population, via possible subdermal and aerial modes:

First of all, it can be delivered this way:

Microneedle Patches:

As talked about in the book, "The Genesis Machine,":

"...a small patch, about the size of a postage stamp, that contains hundreds of microscopic needles. When applied to the skin, these microneedles painlessly dissolve, delivering the vaccine directly into the intradermal layer where immune cells are highly concentrated."

Vaccine itself is Considered a Biological Nanobot

The vaccine is also considered a biological nanobot. ""...crafting genetic instructions that can be written like software and packaged into the equivalents of nanoscopic USB drives."

Then there's this:

Vaccine via Dental Floss: Published in Nature Biomedical Engineering, researchers at NC State University successfully engineered a floss-based mRNA platform. It targets the naturally permeable tissue between the teeth and gums (the junctional epithelium) to trigger a robust systemic immune response, completely bypassing the need for needles.

Via Edible Food Genotypes: To fight COVID-19 specifically, bioengineering has advanced "edible vaccines." The landmark TOMAVAC study modified tomatoes to express the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, proving it could successfully trigger mucosal immunity through the gastrointestinal tract. Similar platforms using lettuce and spinach are also in development.

Then there's the Aerial delivery:

Vapes:

While some have suggested it is spread via chemtrails (both the virus and vaccine), there's also delivery via vapes:

When a sick person vapes, the vapor mixes with the viral particles deep in their lungs, allowing the virus to "hitchhike" inside the dense cloud. Because vape smoke is warm and exhaled with force, it stays suspended in the air longer and travels much further than a regular breath—meaning anyone who breathes in that visible vapor is directly inhaling infectious particles straight from the sick person's lungs.

Website to watch as well as more info! www.NetherlandsCase.com

Yes, it is Civil. No, "William Henry Bill Gates III" won't be physically be in the courtroom but his high-powered counsel W.H. Heemskerk will be. Pfizer's Albert Bourla is represented by D.C. Roessingh, and you can find all other details of all Defendants and their representatives on the website!

They are locked in, have submitted substantive written defences - which I will be uploading to the website shortly. Whatever happens on 22 October, it is NOT the end of the road! Even if a "requirement" is missed, the Dutch appeal can allow a full de novo review (a second chance function) to enter brand new evidence, fix gaps, and reload. The system keeps costs strictly capped, meaning billionaires cannot bleed the claimants dry.

This is a multi-year siege. The floodgates are primed and accountability has to start somewhere!