I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
And what's up, this is Tajay of the Mighty Souls of Mischief crew.
I'm chilling with my man Festo, my man A-Plus, and my man Boat, you know, he's dope.
And right now, you know, we're just maxing in the studio.
We're hailing from East Oakland, California, and sometimes it gets a little hectic out there.
The End
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the show.
This is Gigome Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
That biologist is Jonathan Couey.
I am coming to you live out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from the back of my garage.
I'm good friends with Jay Bhattacharya and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Had a great relationship with Mr. Kennedy while we wrote this Wuhan cover-up book and later got hired by Children's Health Defense.
Didn't do so well with that organization.
Ended up butting heads with a lot of people, including Mary Holland.
You can find the work that I did before the pandemic on the National Library of Medicine's website, PubMed, using my last name, my first two initials.
You could maybe find a video or two of mine
some of the six hours that I did for the organization known as Panda.
However, Nick Hudson and Jonathan Engler and the rest of their crew apparently lost those videos, but instead have decided to recycle those ideas on Twitter and on this sub stack with an American by the name of Jessica Hockett.
So Woodhouse76 has a great face to find my ideas diluted in the form of arguments with Claire Craig or Pierre Cory or Mike Eden or even
Jay Bhattacharya, it's really remarkable.
But anyway, irrespective of all the past history, let me just suffice it to say that I'm coming to you live because I think it's very important that we keep our eyes on the ball, and that is when RNA cannot pandemic,
and they tell us stories about how it can, we have a problem.
If intramuscular injection is not medicine, we've got a pretty big problem on our hands.
And if this was always transformation and transfection, then I mean we have some very big problems on our hand.
Now imagine the possibility that that big problem was a population pyramid.
You know, sort of inverted and they needed to manage that problem and they wanted to take advantage of it to create a mythology that they could enslave our kids with.
That's what I think is happening right now with regard to a lot of these stories, including
autism spectrum disorder.
So I wanted to address that today by looking at a video with one Peter McCullough, where he explains his current take as a cardiologist and respiratory disease expert and coronavirus disease expert, expert in alternate treatments.
And I'm really excited about this video.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Let's get on with it.
Hi everyone, it's always good to be with you.
We're about to have a conversation with an eminent guest.
But before I get into that, I just want to say one more time that whether we're separated by geography or distance of one sort or another, I feel a huge sense of connectedness.
I'm sorry to stop it already, but number one, this music is seriously gay.
And two, this whole idea of I seriously feel some sort of connectedness with you.
I'm very sorry to report, but I've got about 110 subscribers.
And I've got a lot of people that just donate because they're inspired by a particular show or by a particular comment I make.
And thank you to all of those people who I don't have a list of here handy and have never read and that's probably very ungrateful of me.
But we're barely making it here.
And I don't feel any connection with any of those people.
I do feel often like I'm just talking to a camera in my garage.
I do often feel like I'm just talking to another camera in my garage.
I feel very alone in this.
I don't...
feel any connection, even though I have some really amazing supporters that give an incredible amount of money that make it possible despite, according to Sasha Latupova's observations, me not having enough followers to make a living.
Somehow or another, this family of five is able to scrape by for five years now through the generosity of just my few viewers.
That's how this works.
And yet I still feel tragically alone, like almost, almost, you know, dangerously alone, except for the fact that I have the love of my wife and my best friend.
And I have my kids around who, I don't know what I would do without my family because I don't have anything else.
And I want to feel connection to my viewers.
I want to feel connection to the people that I made, but I don't.
The numbers don't, and the numbers would not make me feel better, but the numbers would be something of a readout.
Like, oh, wow, I guess it's reaching more people.
I'm not wasting my time.
And so for me, this whole pitch at the beginning about how I feel a connection with you guys and the piano music playing in the background.
It feels, from my perspective, extremely disingenuous because my wife and I don't feel any connection to anyone except for the very few people who send a card, the very few people who have called or came to visit last year.
This is not, I don't know what he's talking about.
Maybe it feels really good when you have millions of people and hundreds of thousands of people giving you money.
Maybe then it feels great.
I don't know what he's talking about.
To all of you, and I just want to hear myself saying that out loud.
I love knowing that I can get feedback from you.
I love knowing that other people are gonna put in their own interpretations, ask more questions, and let me know that you're thinking.
To the matter in hand, my guest today is an eminent American cardiologist, Dr. Peter McCullough.
For people who've been following my content and who've been paying attention to a lot of what's going on, he'll be a familiar voice and face, very outspoken about everything to do with the so-called pandemic.
Before we get into that conversation, and it is a fascinating conversation, let me remind you about how to support this channel.
Basically, it's via patreon.com.
Go there, look for me, part with a little bit of cash, about the price of a cup of coffee every month, and you become part of the family.
You'll see all my new content ahead of time, and you get exclusive access to question and answer session, the occasional competition, all sorts of things that make it worthwhile.
But it'll be made better and enriched by you being there.
And just to let you know, the upcoming interview was filmed against a green screen, so after the titles, my office background will disappear.
You'll be confronted with a coastal scene.
We chose the background because, as you know, years ago I was involved in a series called Coast.
We filmed at lots of coastal locations.
Let me know if you spot which one this actually happens to be.
Anyway, let's get down to it and let's hear from Dr. Peter McCullough.
My guest today is Dr. Peter McCullough, whose face and voice will be very familiar to many.
He's got his scarf on now.
He was one of the most forthright voices questioning the official responses we all endured as the COVID story unfolded.
He paid the price and continues to pay the price for his outspoken honesty.
But thank you for joining me today, Doctor.
So great to join the show.
I think we're kindred, you know, I'm Scots-Irish.
Excellent, that can only help.
Yes, you probably can tell by my name, although we've lost the brogue over time.
Well, we're still brothers under the skin.
Excellent.
There are so many areas, health-related matters that we could talk about even more broadly, but I think what
I want to hear from you about today is the content of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's recent press conference detailing the soaring rates of autism detected amongst the American young.
What's your reaction to the numbers?
It's something like one in 30, I believe.
These are stunning statistics and they're all
disclosed in an April 17, 2025, CDC report.
It has over 60 authors on it, chronicling a meteoric rise in the rate of autism spectrum disorder.
So the CDC uses 16 sites across the United States where they gather information on autism.
It's under our Research Institutional Review Board.
They have lots of internal checks.
It's not just codified data.
They understand who's been referred for learning disabilities.
This is the real deal.
It's not an artifact of increased screening or detection.
Since 2020 to 2022, they've noted another biannual
jump in the rates of autism.
We now are down to 3.2% of American children.
This is a very solid estimate.
The ranges can be less than 1% in Laredo, Texas to as high as 5.3% in California.
So there's a tremendous range.
And within that, when people hear the word autism, let's say, it's a spectrum disorder, so it can be of greater or lesser severity.
Within this soaring proportion of youngsters being diagnosed with autism, how severe
Because I've heard tell of, in some cases, we're talking about people who will never be able to function, never have what we would regard as normal adult lives.
How many of that one in 30, or whatever the proportion is, are at the very, very damaged end of the spectrum?
Right, so the number is about one in 31.
And by the way, it's the same in Europe and the UK.
It's the same.
In fact, I just reviewed
a paper through the pandemic from the UK.
It'll be coming out of my Focal Points sub stack.
The rate they had in the UK was over 9%.
for autism spectrum disorder.
So it's up there as well.
The CDC report discloses over 60% of those children needed special needs education.
So that's a proxy that they were not at the same learning level as normal peers.
In the published literature, it's about a quarter of those with autism are severe to the point where there's repetitive behaviors, headbanging, uncontrollable shouting,
you know, kind of guttural utterances, auditory processing.
So you'll see the small children wearing the noise-canceling headphones if you go out in public spaces.
It's almost certainly a child with severe autism.
Trouble with toileting.
Some actually, you know, never really learn how to use a toilet the rest of your life.
So it's about 25% of that number.
And you know, when I was a child, the rate was one in 10,000, and now it's one in 31.
What's really disturbing to me is the medical orthodoxy, the mainstream medical establishment and the mainstream media seem unconcerned.
The CDC seems unconcerned.
In their April 17th report, 2025,
When we got to the conclusions, they didn't say this is alarming, we need research, we need to stem the tide of this, find out what's the risk factors for this.
Instead, they just concluded, oh well, we'll need more special needs education and resources.
Okay, so let's investigate this a little bit first.
Let me see here.
So the CDC report, he says, quoted as one in 30 have autism spectrum disorder.
Sorry, my pen wasn't open.
And so it wasn't writing.
And in 2020 to 2022, he also says there was another jump in the rate of autism in America.
But there are tremendous ranges between different states.
They both agree that it is a spectrum of disorders.
Neither of them mentions the recently coined term by CHD, profound autism.
You can see a number of videos on CHD's website that just recently published as they've tried to coin a new phrase that, well, you know, the guys that are banging their heads and are not toilet trained and are having diarrhea like 12 times a day, those are people with profound autism.
That's a subset.
And so here, we're actually saying that about a quarter of all people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, and you can see that the diagnosis varies quite greatly because in the UK, it's as many as 9% of the kids have autism.
No wonder that's why there are so many kids with YouTube channels from the UK that say they're autistic, and even young adults that have YouTube channels that say that they're autistic.
And it's scary because the question becomes what is autism if it's such a profound spectrum from people that, you know, like Polly Tommy's daughter can advocate for these people to have more awareness of them and we should make more room for them at the grocery store so that they can have jobs too.
All the way to some parents who apparently like
somebody like Brian Hooker is dealing with an adult child with what is essentially the behavioral repertoire of a toddler, but the strength of a man and who is still not toilet trained completely.
Like that's a pretty profound difference.
That's a pretty profound spectrum.
That's just kind of like, you know, I don't think this is genuine.
I think what this is, is a given script
It is a well-studied narrative that all of these people are very good at saying, but haven't really thought about the consequences of their imprecision.
It is the very similar thing to what was done with AIDS 30 years ago.
If you'd done any research and reading about it, you would know that
Basically, with an antibody test, any medical condition could, in theory, be a result of AIDS, including uterine cancer.
And so this is a profound problem is what it is.
This whole issue of all the language here that CHD is playing with a profound autism and he's talking about severe autism and actually saying that a quarter of all autism is this severe autism with repetitive behavior and sensory sensitivity.
And again, remember that the CDC is unconcerned.
It's the CDC's own report, but they only need more special needs education.
The CDC, the CDC, the CDC.
That's where we are right now.
Now, I would just like to start off and make sure that we understand that the CHD, the Children's Health Defense, Mary Holland and Meryl Nass and Brian Hooker and Polly Tommy,
who I am actively accusing of being a sabotage organization that has never scored a touchdown on purpose, is now sort of sculpting a new, more specific narrative or a more specific set of semantics.
around autism, which will allow them to say, well, you know, we knew there was a whole spectrum, but we were, the worst cases are profound autism.
Well, what do you call SIDS then?
Isn't SIDS even worse than autism?
since Polly cured her autism, since Jenny McCarthy cured her kids autism.
I mean, autism is not a death sentence, but SIDS is, and yet somehow or another, CHD has never bothered to speak out loud the idea that, you know, SIDS is probably just acute injury from intramuscular injection.
Like, I don't understand how it's not more obvious.
And so,
Here we are trying to figure out what autism is, and we're trying to bring and understand what's happening here.
We're trying to bring the average conservative populist voter in America to understand that autism is a very complex thing.
You've never thought about it before, but let Peter McCullough, who already got you out of the pandemic with his outspoken stuff, why don't you let him advise you as to what autism is, bring you up to speed?
What is the likely cause of the soaring rate of autism and other behavioral problems?
What is it?
You know, I recently gave a keynote speech on this at a major meeting.
I'm an internist and a cardiologist, so I am seeing autistic young adults in my practice in increasing number.
And I'm an epidemiologist.
I study the distribution and determinants of disease.
And I can tell you autism is not caused by a single exclusive factor.
It's not.
There are inputs and there are multiple studies to support this.
So for instance, there are common genetic
variants, no genetic mutations.
There's no autism gene, but there are some genetic predispositions, but they're common in populations.
Older adults, so men over 40, women over 35 conceiving children, that's a risk factor.
It's a minor risk factor.
Premature delivery of babies, that's a pretty big one.
If a child is born before 37 weeks in a meta-analysis,
about 20 percent become autistic when they grow up.
They're not born with autism, but they, in a sense, convert to autism somewhere between the ages of two and eight.
I think the biggest risk factor though, the biggest, most modifiable risk factor is combination vaccination.
It was first described by Leo Kanner, a child psychiatrist in 1943,
where one out of the 11 children he initially described with autism, they converted, they were normal, and they converted to autism after the smallpox vaccine.
Obviously, I'm well aware of the fact that here we had Andrew Wakefield many years ago now who drew a link between the MMR vaccination programme that my children all went through and increased incidence of autism.
It terrifies me now when I think about it, but myself, my wife and I,
We didn't hesitate to get our children the MMR vaccine, and we listened to Dr. Wakefield.
And just to make sure that you're following along, whoa, that was the wrong one, this one, that one.
So he also listed old parents, he listed premature babies, but then they convert to autism from year two to eight.
He said that all very fast, just make sure you heard it.
He also said the biggest cause, the most dangerous one he thought was combination vaccines, which actually goes back to Brian Hooker's original audio that we got from 2013, where he said that his son received like five vaccines on one day when he had an ear infection.
And so he got a super big dose of thimerosal.
and that would be the mercury.
So here it's interesting how these narratives over the course of these last 20 years are slowly starting to sort of weave together into one.
But this one, he's now saying converted, like three times he says converted.
So it seems to imply something that bothers me a lot, which is it seems to imply a relatively fast shift from non-autism to autism.
which in my humble opinion has been something of a concern in the narrative because both Paul Offit and Mary Holland, longtime opponents on different sides of this argument, have been unable to articulate that the objection that Mary Holland has with regard to vaccines are stories about kids that are injured really acutely after injection.
And so an easy way to do this would be a placebo trial where you randomly gave either a placebo or a vaccine and 30 days apart, you gave them the other one.
And then we would have this solved because, you know, the placebo wouldn't cause anything.
And the injections, if they did anything, would do something.
And we'd have this answered and nobody would have to skip their vaccines.
And there'd be no moral, you know, objection to letting some kids be vulnerable to measles and some kids not.
It's just a month.
And Mary Holland couldn't come up with the idea that, you know what?
A lot of the kids that die after vaccines just kind of die.
And so if we wanted to prove that some kids die and some kids, you know, they die from the vaccines, then we could do a placebo trial that was only like 30 days or 60 days long and all the kids would get their vaccines.
It's just that some of them would get a placebo before the vaccine, some would get a placebo and then the vaccine.
And then we would be able to see
you know, between let's say two years and two months and two years and four months, whether any of these kids in any group, you know, have this SIDS thing.
But they couldn't do it.
And instead, we've already gotten right down to the original recycled story about MMR in the UK years and years ago with Paula Aitken,
and the original paper in Lancet.
We have one of the moms who has believed for over two decades that this guy is fake.
And he moved to America and became rich with another woman by the name of Polly Tommy, who was on billboards in the UK at the same time, in her bra, swaying six million votes for prime minister.
And then she moved to America with Andrew Wakefield after being in UK magazines saying that she cured her son with Andrew Wakefield and secretin injections.
She went so far as to allow herself to be quoted in newspapers as saying that we with just to make sure it worked We withheld his treatment and he reverted So when we gave him the treatment he recovered again they actually told that story to a newspaper and yet she's still in America claiming she has an autistic child and
being roundly ridiculed and disparaged across the piece by the medical orthodoxy.
And now we look back at that time, at that story, and we just thank our lucky stars.
My wife and I are the same.
Our children received all the vaccines.
I personally received all the vaccines.
I traveled.
I took more
vaccine.
So a few principles about vaccines.
They are far safer when they're given individually as opposed to combinations.
It makes sense because.
OK, so there he repeated it again, and it's not a terrible argument.
I would be willing to bet that Brandy Vaughn made that argument.
I mean, you have to test medicines in combination, right?
You would never just willy nilly suggest that people do take four medicines.
But again, this is intramuscular injection, so it is obviously worse.
But I do think it gets around the point, again, remember the analogy that I think works most aptly here is to think of intramuscular injection as a baseball bat to the head.
And what he's arguing is is that, you know, when kids really get hurt is when they go to the doctor's office and they get hit in the head with the bat multiple times, you know, on both sides of their head.
Then they come home with a real headache.
Those are the those are the kind of, you know, doctor's visits we should try to avoid.
And that's how ridiculous it should sound to you if you really understand the biology that they're trying to obfuscate here.
As when you combine multiple different products in a single shot, you can evoke more
inflammatory side effects, they're far safer.
One of the things that we can say Reginald Perrin in the chat is asking, and I'll put it up here, babies have tiny muscles, maybe it's to do with I am injecting babies before placebos, before they're grown or whatever.
What probably has more to do with is the fact that the blood-brain barrier isn't fully developed in a newborn baby.
And so, a lot of these toxins, when they go into circulation, are free to go wherever they want to go.
And that's, in a four or five-year-old kid, that's a much, much more, let's say, fortified, well-developed barrier, as is their liver and all this other stuff.
So, it's an extraordinary combination of dumb.
to be injecting newborn children or even in their first year or two.
It's just extraordinarily dumb.
And that's why I use that phrase, because it is.
It makes no biological sense from a developmental perspective, all of the ways that an infant is vulnerable on purpose.
The reason why, you know, it's just remarkable how silly it is.
You could think, you should think of newborn babies
a little bit more like you think of a baby marsupial or a baby mouse, if you've ever seen a baby mouse or a baby rabbit.
They're completely naked.
They're completely helpless.
Their eyes are still basically closed.
And when they open, it's too bright for them.
And they more or less are seeking the warmth of their mom.
And that's it.
And in reality, a newborn
Human is not that much more than a baby rabbit and the development of a human from the Physical perspective and a lot of ways is on a much longer trajectory through time Because that rabbit is supposed to be sexually mature in about nine months not in in like, you know 14 or 16 years and
And so there's definitely all kinds of truth to Paul Thomas's argument that, well, we can give vaccines, we should just give them later.
Yes, if you hit your child in the head with a baseball bat at six months versus two years, one could be potentially catastrophic.
The other one, maybe it's okay.
That's true, but it doesn't make that a, well, then let's consider when to hit our kids with a baseball bat, because hitting your kids with a baseball bat in the head is, I think, and we can all agree, is probably not a good parenting strategy.
And that's the illusion that we can't seem to snap out of, and I think it's because these people agree not to snap out, maybe not him,
but most certainly him because at one point in time in this narrative, he said out loud, if I could do it over again, I don't think I would give my kids any vaccines.
He's never said it again.
A lot of times that's what happens.
Somebody says it and then they never say it again.
I've seen a lot of that pattern, where people are daring to say it, you know, I'm on this, you know, church live stream or something, I'll say it, and then it'll go kind of viral on the internet, but really only in his followers, right?
So nobody will actually hear it, and nobody will actually remind you that he used to say that, but he didn't really used to say it, he said it once.
And that can be weaponized against anyone on the internet forever now.
Because if you ever need proof or somebody thinks you need proof that Peter McCullough is a good guy and he thinks that, they can play that video even though he doesn't ever have to say it again.
Just like they can play a video of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
speaking out about this and that and the other.
If he took the job now and signed on the dotted line or whatever.
I mean, if you saw the press conference yesterday where Donald Trump was in front of the cameras for an hour and the four of these guys were standing behind him, I mean, that was remarkable.
For when given later in life.
So when you and I were children, we took the single measles shot, for example.
I got it at age two.
By age 20, I entered medical school.
I didn't have any.
The single measles shot.
So there he's playing another limited spectrum of debate, a little hamster wheel toy there for you to think about, wow, maybe we should have given them separately.
Maybe Andrew Wakefield was right.
measurable immunity so I had to take another shot and then by age 28 I was a fellow and then he told a story about how he didn't have enough immunity well I guess they measured his antibody titer and so when he had to take a booster for it he's actually telling a story about needing to take a measles booster wow
I mean, that's gross.
I want you to hear that again, because that's remarkable.
And I still didn't have any measurable immunity.
By that time, all they had was the MMR.
So I took two.
They're safer when they're given individually as opposed to combinations.
It makes sense, because when you combine multiple different products in a single shot, you can evoke more inflammatory side effects.
They're far safer when given later in life.
So when you and I were children, we took the single measles shot, for example.
I got it at age two.
By age 20, I entered medical school.
I didn't have any measurable immunity, so I had to take another shot.
And then by age 28, I was a fellow.
Who checked his immunity when he was going into, what is he talking about?
That has to be... Stop lying!
That has to be a lie.
There's no way.
Nobody was checking if he had measles titer before he went into meds.
That's ridiculous.
And I still didn't have any measles immunity.
By that time, all they had was the MMR.
So I took two more MMR shots at age 28.
Well, taking an MMR shot at age 28, in my estimation, is far safer.
than blasting a child at a very early age when their brain is developing.
You mentioned that... When their brain is developing.
How long is the brain developing, Peter McCullough?
Because by my neuroscience training, the brain is developing until about age 22.
That's when the frontal cortex of the human starts to fully mature.
The frontal cortex is that place where Richard Gage or whatever his name was, got the railroad spike, came out of the, you know, he was tamping dynamite into the stone and the tamping rod that he was tamping hit the dynamite.
The dynamite went off and it went up into his eye socket and it took out his frontal cortex.
And he was like this, it totally changed him.
He lived though.
just without a frontal cortex anymore.
And from the anecdotal story of this one railroad worker, all the neuroscientists in the world tell a story about what the frontal cortex does.
But that part of your brain is not fully developed until the very, very end.
And so when, when would it be safe?
He says 28.
I mean, what is he really saying there?
that it's safer to hit an adult in the head, at least, you know, it's going to be harder to, you know, oh my gosh.
The factors, the genetic factors, the premature birth can play into it, but presumably in the last, during the last lifetime,
those factors haven't necessarily changed for any radically identifiable reason, but it's the increase in the number of vaccination products that are introduced into babies, very young infants, that's the changed factor.
And yet you say that the medical orthodoxy and the mainstream media
just refused to to look at the elephant in the room and see it for what it well let's see can i point out what elephant in the room they're not looking at here and why i think that these two have to be colluding in in some sort of malevolent way because the way to win here would be for this guy to point out that they don't do some of the things at some of the frequencies and at some of the ages that we do in america
because it is a very devastating thing to show an American that you know you guys are given eight shots before six months old and we don't do that and Norway doesn't do that and Sweden doesn't do that and it's all optional in the Netherlands and
The list is long in the ways that we could specifically zero in on the absurdity of the American vaccine schedule, the way that Mary Holland could have zeroed in on the absurdity of the American schedule in comparison to other countries' schedules.
Because what's going on here right now is that the viewers are allowed to assume that the world does it basically the same everywhere, right?
If they do not point that out, you can rest assured that that is scripted because that is a ridiculously easy dunk.
And it should be a dunk that any of these people have done for the last decade.
It's the easiest of all the dunks.
Are you worried that I'm advocating against vaccines?
I just want the schedule of insert other Western country here.
And you would be making the same argument that they made for the last 20 minutes without having to argue anything other than, are the Denmark people dying?
Are the people in the Netherlands all dying?
Are the people in Norway all dying?
Then maybe we can, you know, chill on the 72 shots.
Can we chill?
on some of these, you know, earlier and earlier things, multiple dosing things.
But no, they're not able to explain that incredible disparity.
It's not just a subtle difference.
It's an incredible disparity.
And this clown, after five years, seems to be unaware that he could dunk on his American friend by just pointing that out.
It's just remarkable.
It's true.
It started with the seminal observation by Wakefield published in Lancet in 1998.
Again with the Wakefield?
Is he aware that Wakefield published a paper with Peter Daszak on the measles in the 90s?
I guess he's not, right?
Because this is just nuts.
Accepted it.
People read it.
They started to get some concern.
And then it was several years.
Matter of fact, it was over 10 years.
where there was enough kind of political influence, I think, from the vaccine manufacturers and lobby, where ultimately that paper was withdrawn.
After a decade of being a valid paper, authors were pressured.
Wakefield himself says he was threatened with professional reprisal.
This is common.
Wait, I thought he lost his license.
I thought that's the reason why we're supposed to feel bad for him.
I thought that, I don't understand.
for seminal observations.
So this is very important.
So in Semmelweis in the mid 19th century discovered that washing your hands
prevented infections when doctors were doing female pelvic exams, women after they deliver babies.
When he made that discovery, did the research like Wakefield did and published it, he wasn't accepted as a hero.
Just like Wakefield, he was censored and debunked and decredited, castigated.
He actually died 20 years later in a sane asylum.
And then Lindner
And others came forward and said, oh, yeah, you know, washing the hands is important.
I think it was Lister, right?
Isn't Lister the one who did that, too?
I don't know.
Anyway.
Important.
But it took 20 years.
When Sir Austin Bradford Hill presented the data in 1949, unequivocally, that smoking caused lung cancer.
He was wrongly ridiculed, rejected by the medical community.
The doctors were smoking.
Nurses were smoking.
Doctors were advertising cigarettes.
No, cigarettes were safe.
Papers published on this.
It went all the way to 1964.
So what is his point?
Is his point that marketing works?
Is his point that an illusion of consensus works?
I'm not really sure what his point is, because this seems to be a little bit different than, for example, the story of the guy in Greece.
who figured out that ulcers in the stomach were actually bacterial infections that could be treated by antibiotics.
And he got a Nobel Prize for it at some point, I think.
But up until that point, surgeons were just cutting ulcers out.
And it took like 10 years for that practice to stop.
And that would be maybe a more apt example here, but I don't know if he's gonna get there, which is also an interesting thing.
Luther Terry and the Surgeon General report where they called all the chiefs of medicine to Washington and said, listen, bad news, smoking causes lung cancer.
So we're in the same situation now where Wakefield made the seminal observation in 1998, and here we are 2025,
And you know what, the public seems to be far more aware of this and willing to recognize it than the medical community.
Well, I hear what you're saying, and I understand it also to be the case that it's across the world.
It's in Europe, it's in the UK, and so on and so on.
But let's see, in America, your homeland, why aren't people terrified, frankly, by the prospect?
Because one in 30 people
Why shouldn't they be terrified by the prospect that we are given more injections earlier than any other Western country in the world?
Why shouldn't we be more terrified of that?
Why shouldn't we be more terrified of the idea that no one who seems to be kind of aware of the problem has been able to save any kids from an ever-expanding vaccine schedule in America?
Why isn't that their focus?
by scripted design.
They are on a script.
Affected in this way, and a quarter of those being so affected that they can't and won't live a normal adult life.
That will change the fabric.
Okay, let's end this discussion right now, right?
Okay, so a quarter of the kids will never do a normal life.
That's what he just said.
I don't like that because I think that's part of the illusion.
So I love old books.
I collect old books.
And every time I get an old book and read it, I'm so excited because I learned something.
Because again, remember this history is real and it's still tappable.
And so I thought I would try to find old discussions of the word autism, old discussions of the term autism.
And on eBay, I was able to come up with a book called Infantile Autism, Proceedings from the Indiana University Colloquium.
I didn't put my Indiana shorts on.
I was going to put my Indiana shorts on.
Shoot.
And there's three doctors, Don Churchill, Gerald Alpern, and Marion DeMeyer.
And I thought it would be very interesting because, of course, if we look at a book like this, I don't think my camera's going to do very well, but I'll just see.
If we look at a book like this and we try to discern what it is that we are seeing here, what are some of the questions that we should be asking?
Well, again,
We should be asking about old parents.
We should be, you know, maybe that was because there's only a very rare number of people having autism in 1968.
This is before the huge increase in the vaccine schedule.
And so,
you know, these stories of conversion that he uses this, this, you know, very rapid loss of language and headbanging and this stuff that these people have described is, I guess what we should see described in this book, along with the loss of social behaviors and things like that, it must be just as catastrophic, right?
If it's just rarer in the past,
then we should see something and read something that we understand and are familiar with here.
So I'm going to move this, get this over here, and then I will attempt to read from my screen.
This might not work so well, but we're going to do it here anyway.
And I want to read just the full word because the full word is basically giving you an idea of what they're trying to do here.
And I assume that this full word will describe a catastrophic change in children that occurs coincidence with some kind of, you know, taking Tylenol or, I don't know, exposure to peanuts or something like that.
So the most appropriate prologue for this colloquium volume is found in Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact, published by Leo Kanner in 1943.
Based upon his own sharply penetrating clinical observations of 11 uniquely disturbed children, he wrote, the outstanding pathogenomic, I'm not sure how that
Pathogonomic.
I don't know what that word means.
Functional disorder is the children's inability to relate to themselves in the ordinary way to people in situations from the beginning of life.
Their parents referred to them as always having been self-sufficient, like in a shell, happiest when left alone, acting as if people weren't there, perfectly oblivious to everything about him, giving the impression of silent wisdom, failing to develop the usual amount of social awareness, acting almost as if hypnotized.
This is not, as in schizophrenic children or adults, a departure from an initially present relationship.
Sorry, what?
This is not, as in schizophrenic children or adults, a departure from an initially present relationship.
It is not a withdrawal from formerly existing participation.
Huh?
There is, from the start, an extreme autistic aloneness that, whenever possible, disregards, ignores, shuts out anything that comes into the child from the outside.
Direct physical contact or such motion or noise as threatens to disrupt the aloneness is either treated as if it weren't there or, if this is no longer sufficient, resented painfully as distressing interference.
In this landmark study, Dr. Kanner described the essential clinical features of early infantile autism and clearly differentiated it from other superficially similar psychotic states of early childhood, as well as from mental retardation and certain rare metabolic disorders.
His proposed syndrome has successfully weathered the test of subsequent clinical research scrutiny.
The condition remains today, almost three decades later, as elusive and enigmatic as it was when he first identified and described it.
Dr. Kanner was among those initially invited to this colloquium.
It is a great loss for the participants not to have had the opportunity to share his wisdom and sagicity, what a word, in the critical discussions which made up a most important part of this colloquium.
That's a very hard word for me to say.
I apologize for my lack of tongue there.
His historic study has given powerful research impetus to the entire field of child psychiatry.
It just dawns on me that one of the persons who could have said that autism is a myth a long time ago and helped us out here was Andrew Kaufman, who's supposedly a psychiatrist.
I wonder if the Breggins, also psychiatrists, have ever thought about the idea that autism might just be
a word that's being weaponized against us.
Autism Spectrum Disorder might just be a mythology.
This book seems to suggest that I might be right.
The many investigations of infantile autism inspired by his work have not, up to the present, fully clarified the descriptive phenomenology of this condition, let alone its etiology long-term course of prognosis.
Nevertheless, many of these efforts have contributed greatly to our better understanding of childhood schizophrenia, mental retardation, developmental sensory defects, and to the effects of social and cultural deprivation.
They have permitted an elaboration of increasingly well-defined notions concerning normal as well as deviant developmental processes.
They have repeatedly confronted the specialist in child development with the inescapable fact that certain sharp discontinuities in development can and do occur.
That the relationship between infantile autism and superficially related adult psychotic conditions is not as obvious as might appear on the surface.
Perhaps we should coin a new term for the adult condition which evolves out of childhood autism, that is adult autism, as suggested by colloquium participant Gottlieb.
So interesting.
This symposium was designed to provide an open and genial forum for the presentation and discussion of widely diversified clinical and laboratory investigations carried on by some of the most imaginative current workers in the field.
Dr. Marion DeMeyer herself, a central organizer of the symposium, has been devoted to full-time research effort in the childhood autism for more than a decade.
She has been joined in more recent years by Dr. Churchill and Dr. Alpern.
Yes, Schizophrenia, 10 years ago, her colleagues.
Center, which have ranged broadly from biological, neurological, metabolic, endocrine, neurophysiological, behavioral, psychological, social, and cultural aspects of autism.
Wow.
The broadly encompassing scope of this program, which is amplified in even more inclusive presentations on the symposium, attests to the difficulty of Sharp coning down on the central questions posed by this syndrome.
In his introduction, Dr. Alpern notes that in planning this co-occum on infantile autism, the program committee aimed for depth of coverage of the most crucial issues facing researchers and clinicians.
This they have handsomely achieved,
Is infantile autism a clinical entity, a circumscribed group of entities, or perhaps a pseudopopulation at the end of a continuous distribution of the grossly disturbed?
What happens to such children as they proceed through life?
What can be done to affect in any substantial way the course of this disturbance?
What are the sufficient causes of the grave functional deficits which characterize this condition, whether social, genetic, metabolic, neurologic, or psychological?
Dr. Platt bringing a fresh analytic viewpoint to the approach of this lucid clinical problem could express only the hope that as yet unidentified and even unimagined organic factors might be found to provide the basis for a non-empirical treatment program.
This hope is more than faintly reminiscent of the same optimistic one we have all heard concerning the etiology of adult schizophrenic disorders.
In other words, they don't think they're going to get anywhere with adult schizophrenia any more quickly than they'll get anywhere with this infantile autism.
It would seem unlikely that final answers to the difficult questions posed will even be given by isolated workers pursuing their own idiosyncratic bents.
Rather, the complexities of the problem call for a large-scale collaborative effort between investigative groups.
A first step in this direction will be achieved when consensus is reached concerning the minimum criteria demanded to identify and specify the syndrome or disorder.
If this colloquium were to establish nothing more concrete than a general acceptance and widespread use of criteria such as are outlined in the adenum to this volume, it will have served a highly useful purpose.
From the lively exchange which occurred between symposium participants, individuals, widely differing backgrounds, professional specialization, and theoretical basis, it is apparent that the colloquium served as much broader if less circumscribed purpose.
It is to all of these tireless workers, as to Dr. Kanner, that this volume should be dedicated their obvious enthusiasm in sustaining a durable research effort concerning the condition whose diagnosis is difficult to substantiate, whose quantifiable biological tags are seemingly non-existent,
whose response to therapy of whatever type and duration is so discouragingly minimal, and whose effects on sufferer, family, and even therapists are so devastating, commands our admiration and respect."
So that's really, doesn't sound like kids banging their head on the wall and having diarrhea all day and screaming all day.
It doesn't sound like that at all.
I'm going to just keep reading because I do think it's important.
I do think that we might be on to something here.
And so here's the introduction by Gerald Alpern and planning this colloquium on infantile.
Oh, we wanted to.
There were some questions about the topics to be covered in the last three sessions, a unanimous resolve that the first session should be devoted to the description and classification of infantile autism.
It may be worthwhile to analyze the reasons that the classification problem of autism looms so prominently.
Other psychiatric labels, apparently as ill-defined, do at least exist peacefully without constant professional pressure for clarification.
Why are we so concerned with the vagueness of an autism concept which is some 25 years old and which refers to a comparatively rare psychiatric occurrence when the common psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia, a term about 50 years old, has yet to reliably be defined?
Hmm.
Three separate factors seem relevant to the dissatisfaction with the autism label.
The first factor is related to treatment success.
Progress in the treatment of other psychiatric disorders must be considered impressive when compared to the achieved for autism.
Electroconvulsive therapy chemotherapies have reduced significantly the number of patients incapacitated by the many psychotic states.
Similar treatment gains, either on a preventative or restorative basis, can be cited for several of the disorders which produce mental deficiency.
The ultimate goal of any psychiatric classification scheme is to aid in achieving sufficient understanding to allow treatment modifications.
This suggests that if other psychiatric conditions on the poor treatment record we have in the field of autism
had the poor treatment record we have in the field of autism, an equal fervor for nauseological considerations might exist.
So in other words, because they think they can treat schizophrenia with these treatments, they think that that's why they're allowed to exist, whereas autism is already always argued about.
So this colloquium is going to try to define it.
So the definition among scientists, the first of these sessions, in addition, needs to communicate and discover the remedy of the etiology of all the final and less altruistic reasons investigators work for the definitions of childhood autism.
This reason, which must be honestly faced, involves the accolades accorded to those who successfully propagate a new definition or classification.
I need to read this whole thing to you because it's really important that you see what's going on here and exactly how, what you see with Dr. Peter McCullough and what you see with CHD and profound autism and severe autism and one quarter is all severe and this, this is all part of this right here.
The second reason underlying the common call for consideration of definitions relates to the basic tasks of scientific definitions, which will allow meaningful communication among scientists.
In other words, if CHD has confused the definition of autism with vaccine injury and neurological injury due to inappropriate intramuscular injection of substances, then we're never going to escape.
especially if autism was something that was real at some point in time, we're really never going to escape.
Today, a reader may find the journal article of this statement as only definition of the experimental population.
15 autistic children were the subjects of the study.
The problem is that the reader cannot assume he knows what population of children the article's author has sampled.
He might be reading about children with or without speech.
He might be reading about children with low or average or high intelligence.
Do you understand that this is in the 50s and 60s?
This is a 1968 book.
The intellectual and communication levels of the child is frequently extremely relevant in our investigation, but these subject variables are often not studied or reported.
We now seem acutely aware that we cannot excuse such lack of communication.
In the past, we have tended to allow or justify such gross subject descriptions as a testimonial to the heterogeneity of the autistic population.
It seems
elementary to argue that the progress in autism will never probably occur as one investigator stands on the empirical shoulders of his publishing colleague.
In order to be able to benefit from each other's printed experiences, however, we must all speak a common definitional language.
We should not tolerate confusion generated by individuals being committed
to idiosyncratic definitions of autism, and here's why.
In addition, our need to communicate and to discover and remedy the etiology of autism, there is a final, less altruistic reason for better definitions.
This reason, which must be honestly faced, involves the accolades accorded to those who successfully propagate a new definition of the classification.
An example I can give you from neuroscience is this trend a few years ago where studying face cells in monkeys was confounded as studying the circuits in autism because autistic kids don't know faces.
I shit you not, but that's exactly what they're talking about here, is that there's so much fame to be gained by, you know, framing your experiments as relative to something like autism.
We have to be aware of that.
Like the discovery of a new celestial body or scientific breakthrough, a new definition or classification that becomes widely accepted can gain the originator his work and his theories increased stature.
Sounds a little bit like the MMR scheme and Andrew Wakefield.
This type of hindrance exists and each worker must attempt to control it in himself while the opportunity of the researchers seek reliable definitions to be incorporated into a useful classification scheme.
Imagine if they pulled the same shit with virology.
We need to listen to each other with a detached objectivity that allows unbiased appreciation of each one's contributions.
How we can successfully integrate the most productive aspects of all we learn is a problem.
The most productive aspects of all we've learned during the pandemic are essentially ignored.
We have made no progress since Mary Holland and Paul Offit took over the limited spectrum of debate.
No progress at all.
And the first session of three, and then we're going to go in here.
So I'm going to look at the classifications of autism, and I'm going to go right here to.
I mean, I just wanted you to see that when we're thinking about this very, very difficult problem.
They're looking for common denominators, you know, they want, they want to understand if it's something to do with the nature of the, where, where, where can they get hints?
With respect to early infantile autism, there are three main issues.
The first, is there any grounds for isolating the condition as one which differs from other psychological disorders?
So should we separate it from other crazy people, other broken brains, other mal-developed brains?
I don't know.
Are there grounds for differentiating the criteria?
What should we use?
Third, is the condition placed in a unique category of its own?
And so now, does this sound like a kid who goes to screaming and banging on the wall with pain and screaming, can't talk anymore, lost?
Does it sound like that to you?
Does it sound like profound autism?
I think this sounds like something else.
I think this sounds like a very, very different thing.
extreme autistic aloneness a delay in the acquisition of speech together with abnormalities of language particularly the reversal of pronouns and echoing excellent rote memory and apparently obsessive desire for the maintenance of sameness i mean some of this stuff sounds familiar right but
But you can reach that state of consciousness from different routes.
There's no reason to try and explain it as all one thing.
And if these children in the 40s and the 50s... You see, it's a different time.
It's a different vaccine schedule.
So what's going on here, ladies and gentlemen?
What do you think is happening here when Peter McCullough tells us about a spectrum of disorders and these guys agree on it?
What I'm suggesting to you is that autism spectrum disorder takes a very rare childhood disorder and tries to distort it as something that is growing in our society as a spectrum.
And it's not true.
It is being used to disguise the fact that intramuscular injection has never been an appropriate way to administer medicine.
And it may be that even subcutaneous administration of things by a needle is also not a good way to administer medicine.
It's possible.
But this is definitely a malevolent narrative, a mythology that has been given to us, given to our parents, that we inherited from our parents.
And now it's up to us, it's our responsibility as adults to make sure that our kids don't inherit it, that our kids understand that autism was something else.
And they have now used social media
to create this illusion that there is a whole spectrum of people just the way that they've done with the spectrum of gender or the spectrum of whatever.
This is not real.
This is an illusion created by an illusion by people agreeing to stick to a script, to echo back and forth a discussion that is hollow.
Society.
That will mean that everyone is daily encountering multiple people with these spectrum disorders that bar them from functioning normally.
That's a prospect to be horrified by, that kind of societal change.
It's existential to humanity, it really is.
Sociologists, historians,
They should be alarmed at this point in time.
Last night on CNN, Jake Tapper had on a mother of an autistic child.
And of course, in the United States, our media is in a sense opposition politics.
So CNN is opposed to the current administration, including RFK.
And this woman was stating, listen, my child doesn't have problems toileting.
He's able to work a
a low-level job, and the boy looked like he was about 20.
He hasn't started dating yet, so there's been difficulties there.
She goes, I'm not interested in what's causing this.
I just want to know how to best manage this.
So I do think there are some parents who are, in a sense, in this position now.
They are not saving anyone from sudden infant death syndrome.
They're not saving anyone from acute neurological damage or a permanent development, a development disruption, a permanent derailing of what would otherwise be a beautiful trajectory across time, just because you can't detect it.
How do you know that your daughter shouldn't be a all-star soccer player and also a calculus genius if you gave her multiple injections before she was two?
How would you know if your son is supposed to be an engineer and have some kind of math gift if you gave your son 10 injections before he was two?
Let me flip it around.
How would you know if your daughter wasn't supposed to be a gifted athlete if before she was two, you kept hitting her in the knees with baseball bats so she couldn't run around?
How would you know if your daughter was supposed to be a piano genius if you never put a piano in front of her?
Instead, you beat her hands with bats while she was two years old.
So how are you supposed to know
that these kids aren't hurt, aren't injured, aren't suffering, aren't just less than they would be, less remarkable than they would be, had we not intervened during this crucial time points in their lives.
I would go so far as to say that the pain and psychological torture
of a parent surrendering their child to the puncture of a needle is already possibly psychologically traumatic enough to have permanent changes on the mental trajectory across time that that person is.
It's like when your mom
slams you against the wall when you're 10 years old and starts beating you on your face repeatedly.
And instead of telling her to calm down, your dad walks out of the room.
So what we're dealing with here is a extremely malevolent, extremely malevolent tale.
where no precision at all in terms of ranking the priority of messaging, ranking the priority of the problem, ranking what would be understanding what's going on.
It's completely obfuscated here without any mention of the ridiculous vaccine schedule in America relative to his.
And not mentioning at all the idea that the whole concept might be lost
Nope.
It's not gonna happen, ladies and gentlemen, because these people are part of the trap.
This is Team Robert Malone right here.
I mean, this is Team Kevin McKernan right here.
Now, and they're just scrambling.
You know, autism is grossly under-researched.
There's almost no major research programs.
By this time, we should have, you know, 100,000 children in a large prospective cohort study.
We should have huge randomized trials.
Now, why is that?
Well, because neuroscience has funded, to the tune of billions of dollars, research into particular genes.
as a way of looking at autism.
So they did a lot of, you know, correlation studies, and they listed a bunch of genes, and then they made a bunch of knockout mice, and they did all that stuff.
That's for sure.
But that had nothing to do with autism, it was just argued.
It was just, you know, the way that the grant would be written, the way that the grant call would be, you know, knockout mice, studies with with genes, you know, correlated with autism, here's a list, that's it.
billions of dollars.
Just right dead center human genome projects type stuff and nothing more.
There's almost no drug development at all to treat autism.
There's the types of studies.
But Andrew Wakefield used secretin to cure Pauly Tommy's kid.
There's a newspaper article about it.
So what is he talking about?
It's already cured.
Freaking.
Are you kidding me?
Where is that magazine for shit's sake?
She cured her dog.
She cured her son.
Look, I have the magazine right here from 2008.
She cured her son.
What is he talking about?
There's been studies of the microbiome and other strategies.
Just a handful of autistic kids have been evaluated.
I can tell you this is existential.
Remember that Paula Aitken's child that's 38 years old now that can put puzzles together and stuff, she cured his gut.
His brain didn't come back.
I don't know what this is, okay?
I don't know what that Pauly Tommy article is eight years before this with Secretan and Wakefield and he's our new boy.
And I don't know what this is, but I do think that this is a pretty honest book written by some pretty honest people.
And at the time, these people didn't talk about converting.
They didn't talk about SIDS.
They didn't talk about, you know, instant loss of language.
They didn't talk about diarrhea.
Didn't talk about head banging and screaming.
It's an interesting difference that cannot be discounted because I believe autism spectrum disorder is a mythology used to make sure that intramuscular injection is never questioned as a methodology, that virology is never questioned as a science, and that public health is never questioned as a reason.
It's being ignored by mainstream media.
your agencies in the UK, it's the same all over, Japan, UK, Europe, in all Westernized societies that have accelerated mass combination vaccination, they are seeing these terrifying rises.
By the way, the transgender crisis, which has really just been set on fire in the last few years, the vast majority of transgender young people doing this have autism.
So what's that an expression of?
Okay, so first of all, transgender is not...
so much the atropine in the water and whatever else they've said, as it is the messaging.
Because you can just go back before the pandemic to about 2018 or 2017 and just start surfing the internet.
Try to find anybody talking about that.
Try to find anybody encouraging children to think about it.
Try to find anybody encouraging adults to think about kids, to get their kids to think about it.
Because it's not there.
that went from being absent to being prominent at the same time that Pierre Cori was writing his testimony for the suffocation of George Floyd.
This is a remarkable set of circumstances, ladies and gentlemen, because these people have overplayed their hand and I can show you, I can demonstrate it with their actual own words in real time that these people are part of this.
They are scripted.
And even if Neil Oliver doesn't get it or Kim Iverson doesn't get it, Peter McCullough gets it.
Why is there a correlation there?
The studies show that autistic children, they have trouble communicating and fitting in with their peer groups.
They feel ostracized.
Many times they're suggestible.
They appear to be influenced by this flood of pornography now coming into the schools.
And when they're approached by a counselor and you suggest maybe they should change their genders, they tend to
take this gender journey.
And that is an autistic kid?
I mean, this is some seriously mixed up shit right here.
Wow.
I mean, wow.
It has nothing to do with social media messaging.
No, it can't be that.
It has nothing to do with Snapchat or TikTok or Instagram.
None of that stuff matters.
Facebook, who cares?
Twitter, who gives a shit?
It's the porno in the schools.
Wow.
Holy man.
But there's been multiple studies, a big study from the UK by Warrior and colleagues.
It couldn't be the movies coming out of Hollywood.
It couldn't be the movies and things on Netflix.
No, no, no.
Nah, nah, it's not.
Hulu.
A large fraction of the drivers for a gender change are rooted in this now autism epidemic.
It feels like it has, there are many facets to this.
I don't even know what that means.
There's an underlying anti-humanism about all of this.
There's an, you know, the whole AI, the transhumanism, you know, the blending.
I got a language challenge for you and I know it's going to be hard for you to take it.
So I'm going to, I'm just going to say it out there and I'm going to start doing it.
And if it annoys you, it annoys you, but I'm not going to, I'm not going to use the word human anymore.
I'm not going to use it.
I think that one of the reasons why they want us to use it is because then we think of ourselves as a species and I don't want to think of myself as a human.
I'm a person.
And what comes along with being a person is my own rights, my own thoughts, my own creativity, my own output, and my own limited time on earth to contribute to the future, to plant trees under whose shade I will never shelter.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I'm a person, you're a person, your kids are persons, and together we are people.
And people make up a society, not humans.
Humans are experimental animals.
Humans are numbers.
Humans are expendable.
I'm a person.
My daughter's a person.
My sons are people.
Let's do this.
Let's break this slave speak one word at a time.
Biology with technology speaks somehow to a lack of awe about what it is to be human and alive.
And that we've even got to the point in the early part of this millennium, as it being a commonplace for so many people to be so negatively affected by a medical procedure that is driven by the appetite for profit more than by anything else.
But there is this contempt that humanity is being changed and there's a shoulder shrug as though it doesn't matter.
Well, in many ways, this new computer online kind of environment, almost a virtual environment that people can live is kind of conducive to those with autism.
Remember, a fraction of those on the spectrum have what's called Asperger's.
Asperger's is actually the name of a doctor, Dr. Asperger.
They actually have exceptional abilities.
So Asperger's exceptional abilities in computers or music or electronics or engineering, they're very, very talented people.
So there's some convergence between.
There's some convergence.
That's what they want you to believe.
There's some convergence.
So it has nothing to do with SIDS.
It has nothing to do with the neurological injury that Brian Hooker would not call autism in 2013.
It has something to do with this spectrum of things that can even, if you're lucky, you can be a great blackjack player and card counter and also just be a little asocial.
technological advancement that we're in.
Our generation has so far managed the greatest velocity of change of any generation in history.
Remember, for generation after generation, people were paper and pencil.
And outside of electrification, which occurred around 1910 in the United States, outside of that, we've gone from paper and pencil
and telephones that were shared in a party line on the street, and phone booths, all the way to an entire computer in our hand.
And we don't even need to go work outside the home because everything is brought into us.
So there's a convergence here.
I agree with you.
But autism is a neuropsychiatric disorder, for sure.
And the children are born normal.
The classic vignette is a child comes in for a well baby visit.
They're perfectly normal.
They get a blast of vaccines.
And between the, in the United States, between 12 and 15 years, it's about 16 different products given at once.
They're given in 12 and 16.
Now goes home, gets very sick.
Uh, it gets a fee between 12 and 16 months.
Did he say, or did 12 and 16 years?
That's weird.
Look at this big boy.
Such a good boy.
Don't get mad at me for picking you up.
He hates getting picked up.
He's so, so hardcore about not being picked up.
Okay, here we go.
We're going to click it again.
Let's resume this show.
Hold on one second, Mikey.
Ever and then has a seizure.
It can result in one to two outcomes.
One is sudden infant death.
If the parents aren't around, the child can die.
or if the child survives, then they appear from that point in time neurologically damaged.
They regress and it's almost immediate that parents report this.
We know that the high fever is due to cytokines.
These are inflammatory factors responding to the vaccines.
They surge into the brain and they cause brain damage.
And there are multiple papers, there's about over 200 peer-reviewed papers showing that the biological basis of autism is immune system dysfunction.
Something is triggering the immune system.
So the data fits.
So in the United States, about three to 4% of children per year have a febrile seizure.
My daughter had a febrile seizure about six days old or so, and we blame it on this.
I see a question in the chat, with all this info, did you get your dog vaccinated?
And I have a very practical answer for you.
We have a wonderful vet who's totally down with everything that we want to do, but Mike is going to be a very big dog and for a great Pyrenee,
He has a very high prey drive.
He chases things, and more importantly, he does bite my son.
It's play biting, but he uses his teeth and he's young and he barks and he can get angry at people.
And in Pennsylvania, if he were to have an interaction with somebody and not have his rabies shot, you know, there could be all kinds of consequences to that.
So he has had a rabies shot and he probably will have another one because it's required.
But our vet will also check titers.
I don't know what that means with regard to the rabies shot.
And I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether it's real or not.
Just suffice it to say that our vet is very understanding but there are laws in Pennsylvania and he's a dangerous dog.
Like he's not a dog for unadvanced dog owners.
I would never recommend that anybody get a dog like we now have if you don't know what you're doing because
Mike as a young dog is a crazy dog sometimes.
And he gets, he's got a lot of energy and a lot of instincts.
He'll bark in the middle of the night if he hears something.
I do think that last night we had him out on the porch and his leash was underneath the leg of a stool or a bench.
And when I got up in the morning, he was still on the porch, but the bench was in the yard.
So I think in the middle of the night, he just got loose and then came back.
They are very, very advanced level dogs.
Very, very much wild animals in some ways.
Very, let's say, independent.
You know, you can get him to come.
He's great.
He's a good dog.
He shakes hands and whatever, and he smiles at you when you come home.
He puts his teeth up and stuff.
But, you know, he's got a lot of instincts of a dog, like a real wolf dog.
You know, he's like a dire wolf, if you will.
probably more real direwolf than what they're making and uh so we're really happy with them and most importantly i wish i could show you a video ruby is extremely happy with little mike um sometimes they play until they pass out together and it's just beautiful because
You know, Mike is often super gentle with her, and she, you know, asks him to play sometimes, and it's just really a wonderful thing to see.
So our soon-to-be 10-year-old dog, Ruby, has a new zest for life because of her little friend.
And so the plan worked pretty well, and we're really happy with Mike.
But I'm not at all encouraging anyone to get a Great Pyrenee.
Do not do it.
Don't do it.
Start out with a Liam Burger if you can.
They're really hard to get, but if you get lucky, you know, you live in Belgium or something like that, or in the Netherlands, you can get one like we did, and they're just the best dogs ever.
I love Mike too, but man, Liam Burgers rock.
Of many causes, vaccines, infections, strep throat, what have you, a paper by Nielsen in Sweden, very important paper, showed if a febrile seizure occurs in a child before the age of nine,
that there is a 40% chance that child will develop a neurologic disorder.
You know, attention deficit disorder, autism spectrum disorder, various tics, seizures, motor disorders, the Swedish called the essence grouping.
And so that now this makes sense, right?
So if- Okay, so interestingly enough, in the third edition of the peanut allergy epidemic, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
decided that he had to write
the forward to it, and Skyhorse Publishing wanted to do their own book of it.
He writes the forward and he lists a whole bunch of things that are caused by the things, including, I learned a host of childhood epidemics, autism, ADD, ADHD, SIDS, OCD,
ASD, which is autism spectrum disorder, narcolepsy, sleep and seizure disorders, neurodevelopmental delays, autoimmune diseases, and tics all began to rise in the early 90s.
Huh.
This is a 2017 reprint of a 2010 book written by Heather Fraser.
And it's an interesting thing to see that in 2017, Skyhorse Publishing decided to reprint this one.
And in 2010, this book came out.
And in 2010, Skyhorse Publishing did not republish the history of the peanut allergy epidemic.
But in 2010, they published the Andrew Wakefield book, Callous Disregard, which is the book that tells the story that includes Child 4.
who is Colin, the son of Paula Aitken that I talked to on my stream a couple of weeks ago.
A wonderful interview, a beautiful woman, a beautiful heart, and a really compelling story about how Andrew Wakefield has always been an operator, that Bill Deere, the journalist that outed him, was an operator, and that Paul Shattuck is an operator.
They all wanted to find out how she cured her son's gut, and then they all left her alone.
And it's because her kid doesn't fit this story that they wanted to tell.
And they just pigeonholed him in and told him, told that it was all like this.
So what's crazy is that this book that we just read told the same story, right?
It tells a story about how people that define it,
that come up with new theories about it.
If those things catch on, then they become very famous.
And that seems like kind of what this is, right?
We're going to tell a story about the MMR and advocate for single vaccines.
And it's going to go for a really long time.
And we're going to sway some votes.
And we're going to start a care home or two and a nonprofit or two.
We're going to buy a ranch in Texas or two.
And then we're going to recycle it for votes in America 10 years later.
by redefining something that was extremely rare, had already a very loose definition and a disagreement on what it was, and confound it with acute neurological injury due to inappropriate injection of substances as medicine, and calling it something that it shouldn't be called.
Hmm.
Interesting times, ladies and gentlemen.
Interesting times.
If 4% have a febrile seizure, 40% of them convert to a neurologic problem.
It fits with this 3.2% and growing number.
Now, of interest, it can't just be due to increased screening for autism because the other neurologic disorders are going up as well.
So for instance, tics, which are readily identifiable facial motor disorders, they are also on the same rise as autism spectrum disorder.
So that's really interesting, right?
Because we already knew that almost 10 years ago.
Actually, sorry, almost 15 or 16 years ago.
Oh, wait, sorry.
It's even earlier than that.
How far should we go back?
Maybe go back to like 1988.
I mean, I don't want to go back all the way to 1800, but we can go back to 1988.
It's really interesting how long we've known this yet from a practical perspective, from a newborn child's perspective, it's gotten worse and worse and worse, even though all these people have known for so long.
Remarkable.
Complacency around it is terrifying.
I've used that word already, but the fact that these things are being observed at scale and the response is only, as you've outlined, for people voicing a desire to be able to cope with it.
to address the symptoms, as it were, rather than to find the solution.
And I've heard over and over again in the last few years, when I was paying attention to the COVID story and to what was being done by these gene therapies, that we're playing around with them.
Everything comes back to the immune system.
And I've heard the immune system described as like the Pacific Ocean.
as it confronted the earliest navigators of incredible extent and incredible depth and were paddling around on the surface of it.
And yet there's this arrogant determination to influence, affect the immune system via the vaccination programme to as yet non-understood ends.
I find that terrifying.
Well, it's basically become like a religion.
It's what we call vaccine ideology.
And it goes.
So it's a vaccine ideology, but they can't enunciate that the whole thing is bunk.
He says that the immune system is like the Pacific Ocean and we're paddling around on top of it.
And we think we know what happens when we do what.
Is the ocean an adequate sort of metaphor for it, if you don't explain what that is?
It's not really, you see.
We're not really learning anything here.
It's not really an apt analogy if you don't identify it as an irreducibly complex system that we are ham-fistedly claiming we have mastery over.
Is it really that hard?
Are these two guys really that bad with our native language that they couldn't come up with something better than what they just said?
And that I, you know, some guy in the back of his garage can just pull things out from between my ears and spit them out and they sound infinitely better than what these two scripted clowns can say?
There's no explanation for that other than them being on a script, sticking to a script.
Because it makes them rich.
And I'm not saying that these guys are doing it for that, although that's a nice bonus.
They're doing it because they know they are part of the ruling elite and they're auditioning for higher and higher roles in it.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of these people became governor of Texas or one of these people ran for a seat in parliament at some point.
Hey, back to Edward Jenner.
in the UK.
I mean, the arrogance, you know, back then they had no test for smallpox.
They couldn't confirm smallpox versus measles or tetrarysis rosae or any other rash.
So each time a vaccine was developed, they didn't even have a way of confirming the diagnosis of what they were vaccinating for.
The same is true for measles, the same is true for polio.
The hubris here is that, and how the ideology goes, is that mankind is vulnerable to infectious diseases.
We're vulnerable.
But through the brilliance of science and mankind can improve upon God's creation.
This is the ultimate hubris.
This was taken to such an extent and it's topical now, that Pope Francis who just died,
He issued production of a coin, a papal coin, a 20-year-old coin.
And this is during the pandemic.
And it's a picture of a young boy.
And he's about to receive the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ.
But instead, he's receiving a vaccine.
This shows you.
And there's always been money and power around vaccines.
Even back to Jenner, he was at the right hand of the king.
And we've seen Louis Pasteur and the incredible arrogance there.
There was no confirmation that his vaccine ever prevented rabies.
And how all these vaccines are developed early on is they're almost like a miracle.
Here, this works.
Take it.
And in fact, during smallpox, people were forced to take it or otherwise be jailed.
It led to the Imperial Vaccination League in the UK and then the Anti-Vaccination League.
And there was tremendous protests.
I mean, that's our legacy.
So people say, well, you're surprised about protests over the COVID-19 vaccines and mandates.
Well, we go back several hundred years.
It was the same thing.
It's astonishing.
I saw that you had retweeted recently, I think, a post by the Vigilant Fox about aluminium.
Scientists have found aluminium in the brains of children with autism at levels higher than almost any human brain tissue ever recorded.
Now, this will be very interesting.
This comment, I think you'll find very interesting.
Aluminum is a known neurotoxin, and it's not supposed to be in the brain at all.
How is aluminum at these levels entering the brain?
Tell me, I understood the blood-brain barrier and so on.
How is it coming to pass that there's this terrifyingly high buildup of aluminum in infant brains?
Well, let me tell you, any metal that gets into the body and the bloodstream is typically bad news.
And it readily gets into the brain, like lead, aluminum,
gold, gadolinium, by the way, which is used for MRI scans.
These are all forms of metals.
They get into the brain.
There's been a great concern that vaccines that there are trace amounts of mercury, thiomarosal, and aluminum.
When we gave aluminum in high doses historically to dialysis patients, and I remember those years because I was practicing at the time,
She tried to bind the phosphate in the GI tract.
The aluminum went in the brain and aluminum toxicity in the brain causes more of a dementia picture.
The same is true with lead.
I don't think it's necessarily mercury or aluminum in the vaccines, which are adjuvants that are causing
uh you know autistic changes in the brain it's far more likely to be the cytokines and this wow well there you go that's a pretty bold statement he doesn't think it's the heavy metals brian hooker was wrong he got a very he went over a toxic toxic tipping point with the amount of thimerosal that he got from five vaccines while he also had an ear infection he just said that it was
It's the cytokines that are produced, especially during multiple injections.
Wow.
Interesting, because that's going to dovetail very nicely with Brian Hooker's story that his kid had an ear infection and also got five vaccines.
So it could be the cytokines that were produced by that crazy inflammation.
Nothing to do with the metals, Brian.
Sorry, you were wrong.
Paul Offit was right.
Acute febrile.
episode.
And believe it or not, some of this may be preventable with better education on how to manage a febrile seizure.
So, you know, parents should have both acetaminophen or paracetamol and a nonsteroidal like ibuprofen available and be adept at using tepid baths.
But we can't have the children get such a high fever.
Holy shit.
So vaccines might be OK if we knew how to manage febrile seizures.
you know, maybe hitting a kid in the head with a baseball bat is OK as long as you're ready to handle the seizure that might result from it.
Holy shit.
To suffer a seizure.
And here's the dilemma that we're in now is that many of us who understand this, we're at the age where we could become grandparents.
It's very important.
We could become grandparents.
But now we know when we were parents ourselves, we didn't know.
And can you imagine the dismay
and the angst that grandparents are going to have if their children go forward and allow these batteries of vaccines to be administered and their grandchildren develop autism.
And then people say, you know what, we saw this coming, we warned you.
And parents right now of autistic children had no warnings.
I've talked to many of them.
There's no warnings.
They said, listen, we walked in, our doctor said to do this.
We said, okay, we did it.
And so historically in the United States, only 2.5% of Americans declined childhood vaccines, typically on religious or ethical directives like the Amish or the Mennonites and others.
Now that number is up to 10%.
So in a recent study by Mawson and colleagues from the Florida Medicaid program, 49,000 children in the Medicaid program cut at data at age nine, 10% of them had no Medicaid visits for a vaccine.
So it's kind of a proxy for not receiving a vaccine.
Now they could have gotten vaccines outside of a Medicaid visit, like at a school program, but it's a proxy.
And the rate of autism in that group was 1.1%
And the rate of autism in the vaccinated group was 2.9%.
And among the children who had the most visits for vaccine administration, they had even higher rates of autism.
And again, the autism that they're talking about depends on how they defined it.
And this book already said it.
This book already said it and I will read it again because I do think it's really important to understand that the second reason underlying the common call for consideration of definitions relates to the basic task of scientific definitions which will allow meaningful communication among scientists.
Today, a reader may find in a journal article this statement as the only definition of the experimental population.
Quote unquote, 15 autistic children were the subjects of the study.
Unquote.
The problem is that the reader cannot assume he knows what population of children in the author's article has been sampled.
Sorry, I can barely read without my glasses.
I mean, I can read, but it's annoying.
He might not be reading about children with or without speech.
He might be reading about children with low, average, or high intelligence.
The intellectual and communication levels of the child are frequently extremely relevant to our investigations, but these subject variables are often not studied or reported.
And so in this particular case, I would argue that it's very likely that the subjects and the papers and the statistics that he is citing suffer from this exact
Lack of specificity.
We just agree that autism is real.
We agree that people can study it and that people can check that box.
And so we can do papers about it.
And that is absolutely positively the problem here and how you can see that wittingly or unwittingly, these guys are trapped.
The data we're discussing is cohesive, meaning it fits together scientifically.
And the mainstream media and the medical orthodoxy cannot continue to turn a blind eye to this.
It's going to consume us from a societal perspective.
What does it take, after all?
There's now RFK Jr.
at the highest levels of the administration.
He is speaking about this.
He has been concerned.
He has been audibly concerned about all of this for decades.
Surely now, in the United States of America, you would be expecting to see change.
There appears to be complete acquiescence.
There was a recent paper in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association, arguing that medical schools should intentionally recruit autistic applicants so we can have more doctors with autism, so they can relate to autistic patients.
It's astounding.
But do you have a sense, say with someone like Kennedy in the position that he now occupies, that you would see a sea change?
Let's say in relation to the MRNA platform, would you expect to see that dealt with, withdrawn, suspended, or will that grind on remorselessly with the rest of the juggernaut?
Usually, if we use the example of handwashing and smoking, it takes many decades now
since the time of Wakefield's publication, those decades have gone on.
But do you know even- It is not by accident that they keep mentioning Wakefield.
It is not by accident that they keep mentioning Wakefield.
And it's not by accident that they keep not realizing that Peter Daszak is his co-author on a measles paper.
Even in the last month, in the major literature, New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA,
They again cite Wakefield and say he's debunked and discredited and then he started all of this skepticism on vaccines.
Well, listen, if his observations were so wrong and so scientifically invalid, why do they keep bringing him up?
Well, precisely.
But it's this inertia.
If you've even got, as I say again, if you have someone like Kennedy in the position that he's in, with the attitudes and the understanding that he has long professed, if there won't be change under his bailiwick, then what does the future really hold?
I completely agree.
In my field in cardiology, for problems, emerging problems, we have what's called Bethesda meetings, Bethesda, Maryland, and it's the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, CDC, other agencies, industry, and we have, you know, it's usually well attended and there's a
a schedule of presentations.
These were all suspended during COVID.
They've never been restarted.
We need to start meeting, invite all the major players to the table, and start reviewing the data on autism, on vaccine safety.
Don't forget the COVID vaccines are still being used.
When I give big public programs, thousands of people attend, I ask a question.
I asked, how many of you in the crowd know somebody who's been injured, disabled, or have died as a result of the COVID-19 vaccine?
85% of people raised their hand.
So the public knows.
The public is actually not taking vaccines as adults.
The only group that's taking vaccines because they're essentially forced into it are children.
So we have 70 million children in the United States.
We had 9 million actually take COVID-19 vaccines last year.
It's probably more than
than the adults did.
In Brazil, they are forcing children starting at age six months to take COVID vaccines.
And if parents decline, they get essentially a US $30,000 fine levied against them, or they get put in jail.
And there's been published surveys of Brazilian judges who believe it's absolutely essential for public health for the children to be vaccinated against COVID.
They don't care so much about the adults, just the children.
Why or when will the, what is now I would say, consensus that these products were neither safe nor effective going to make any difference?
Why are millions of American infants being given these products when we know, we absolutely know, that they don't
prevent transmission because they were never tested for that in the first place.
Wait, so is it more important that they don't stop transmission or is it more important that they're killing people?
Is it more important that they don't stop transmission or is it more important that they're giving people autoimmune reactions on a scale and a breadth and a depth and a bouquet of different things that we've never seen before?
and that all of these people knew would happen because transformation and transfection were studied technologies ever since Jesse Gelsinger died.
And the people that were involved in this are people like Steve Hadfield and Robert Malone.
And yet I'm supposed to believe that this guy is not on a script, that Peter McCullough is not on a script, they're just both getting together trying to crack this mystery?
This is exactly the trap.
You are staring at the brick wall.
It's only a question of whether you can smell the masonry and whether you'll put your hands up to feel the spiky surface of the bricks.
Because you're so close to the brick wall that even a 10-year-old child could hit you in the back of the head and you would be bleeding from the bricks.
That's how close all of us are standing to the brick wall when we engage with people like Peter McCullough, or Robert Malone, or Jane Ruby, or Dr. Drew, or we think that somebody like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
got there because of his incredible record of integrity.
We are in a trap.
Our kids are in a trap.
And more importantly, the target is our grandkids.
So we've got to wake up.
We've got to apologize to our children for falling asleep at the wheel and we need to take control of our world again.
I'm going to leave it there because I don't know.
I don't need to hear the rest of these guys talking.
And I'm going to skip a lot of what I was going to do as a wrap up because I don't want to end on a bad note.
I just want to end on an objective note.
I'm pretty sure that these guys are involved.
I'm pretty sure it's important to understand Steve Bannon.
I'm pretty sure it's important to understand the father of Brett and Eric Weinstein.
I'm sure it's pretty important to understand Kevin McKernan and his father and brothers and his role in this.
I'm very certain it's important to understand Robert Malone's role
in the anthrax vaccine, in the whole narrative control during 9-11 and the anthrax afterward, I think it's a very, very good, it's a good hunch that Robert Malone knows that it wasn't Bruce Ivins and that they falsely accused him.
And he probably knows who did it.
Maybe it was even Stephen Hadfield.
And I think that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is the victim of a Truman show of the worst and most malevolent kind where he just wanted to,
you know, maybe rescue America the way that it says in the epilogue of Don't Start the Revolution Without Me in 2008.
I don't really know.
I do know for sure it's for all the marbles and that's why they told us this little silly story here about a novel virus that started in Wuhan and is still going around the world today.
That's why there's a fake anti-vax movement in America.
It's a story about a background.
It's a story that's only possible if they get away with using PCR as a non-specific indicator of something that is very specific when it's not.
In other words, the fidelity implied by using PCR to find things has been so over-exaggerated to become accepted as the gold standard.
It's really absurd.
It's so absurd that you can actually say it as cleverly as using their tests to find their ghost does not make their ghost real, nor does it make you a ghostbuster.
And one of the primary reasons why Jessica Rose and Kevin McKernan exist and have profited and enjoyed the pandemic is because it was their
their job to curate this narrative from the very beginning, to tour the world, to talk to these people and make sure that they stayed on narrative, where they'd never figure out that RNA can't pandemic, that intramuscular injection is not medicine, and so they needed to make up myths like autism and gain-of-function research in order to make sure that people would never realize it.
And transfection and transformation was always bad for healthy people, and these people knew it.
They knew they couldn't make it pure because they were going to use the same shitty technology they used to make biologics, minus the purification step.
And finally, the population pyramid is a real problem that all of these Western nations have, and they've been solving it with murder and immigration and liars.
And if you're still here, thanks very much for being here.
One thing I am confident of from everything I've read is that this RNA exists.
You can capture it.
You can sequence it.
You can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for being here.
And I will see you again tomorrow.
Thank you.
I think I want to go there.
No, there.
Something like that.
No, that didn't work really yet either, and I still have to play this out.
So I might just go over here to the wide side.
Thank you very much for being here, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you very much for being in the chat.
I do read it.
You know, it's just sometimes hard to keep up with.
But I am seeing it and I will start to do that a little more often.
I don't know.
I got I got too many messages too much Too much to say To do the chat thing.
So send me an email send me something on soapbox.
It's good to see everybody here.
Thanks for being here Thanks for everything for sharing for supporting I really do appreciate it an awful awful lot and
It's a good show.
Good show.
I don't know what to say.
Mark had a really great show this morning.
He went on early.
He had the fire early and I think it's a good show.
If you didn't catch it, check it out.
Mark has basically cracked this puzzle wide open with the book Germs, and I think it just... everything lines up.
I don't know what to say when everything lines up like this.
It's kind of, you know, I don't know what to say.
I'm gonna see if I can convince Mark Kulak to come on a stream soon, and we're gonna enjoy together the Jay Bhattacharya interview of Robert Malone that occurred on his
Illusion of Consensus podcast because that interview is actually way more interesting than I remember.
I listened to it on the hardwood the other day and I could barely shoot at times because I couldn't believe what was being said.
And it was a script, a script that, you know, Jay Bhattacharya seems happy to read.
And so we are in trouble.
America doesn't need help.
But I think there are some patriots on the case.
And I humbly submit that me and my family are five of them.
Thank you very much for being here.
See you again soon.