— There is no question about it; so everyone who’s saying otherwise is lying

How are you liking the “short takes?” This’ll be the 5th one. There will be more. A lot more. So far, nothing but positive feedback from the member peeps. Anyone else? Also, this is the perfect vehicle to suggest a post-topic to me. Bonus if rant-worthy. I’m pretty particular about what I go long-form on (3k+) because those take many hours. Short takes? If it’s of interest to me, it’s usually less than an hour. I can pop off a thousand words on the ins-&-outs of taking out your trash on Tuesdays.

And that’s what these are. 1000-ish words. It so happens that the sweet spot for average attention span is just about that number (1200 or less). So that’s always my target for these and by categorizing them as “short take,” you know ahead of time it’s going to be a quick reward.

… I missed this one. More accurately, I never looked into it 1 little scintilla, trusting the hand-waving, nothing-to-see-here wave-offs of others—one smart dude in particular—who said they did look into it carefully.

Well, if they did, they’re fucktards; or, they’re lying.

It took me 5 minutes of honest confrontation to see that there’s a solid, factual link…not a supposition: FACT! Moreover, if you look around, the “science” and media narrative is not that the link is weak or unsubstantiated. It’s that “there is no link,” and I quote. You see that all the time, and there’s a reason for it.

That means they’re lying.

Point-blank. Why? Ha, well that’s an easy one.

It’s for the same reason—precisely—that tobacco companies claimed for years and years that there was no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer (and other things).

Everyone knew that there was a “link,” i.e., an association or correlation. That is, if you take cigarette smoking as a behavior variable, then there is a far higher incidence of lung cancer and the handful of other bad things in those who smoke vs. those who never smoked (2nd-hand smoke is a politicized, have-cake-eat-too, inch-mile bridge-too-far, scientifically). Simple. Easy. Obvious.

So, ironically, because everyone knew there was a link, no question about it, it’s far easier to simply deny it than entertain it or discuss it, especially because the link was so strong and obvious. Any concession whatsoever is tantamount to issuing a license to open the floodgates of discontent and discord.

For many years, the media was in the pockets of the tobacco industry. It took a lot to crack it wide open. The pharmaceutical companies know what’s inevitable, but so far are kicking the can.

This is how the fucktarded human mind works. It’s irrational. It only cares to engage the stuff that’s acceptable to talk about and that everyone more-or-less agrees on. Then it’s sporting to have inconsequential disagreements about aspects of the whole thing. Lots of that in the dietary “wars.”

It’s very simple with autism, just as simple as the ciggies.

You compare the clinical autism diagnoses between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

No. Fucking. Contest.

There’s tons more evidence. I’m calling it causal. See this post by Steve Kirsch, and you’ll grow weary of reading it all.

Here’s what Steve’s readers found most convincing, and I’m sure the reason for that is I believe the data from actual docs seeing actual patients is of high quality and a million times more trustworthy than that of faux-white-coat grant-whores sitting at a spreadsheet trying to figure out how to make the numbers work for their benefactors so that there will always be full employment more grants.

This is why I trust my friend Mike Eades on dietary matters, even though I eat low-to-moderate carbs rather than low-to-no carbs. Ten thousand obese patients. Mary Dan, too. Duh.

There are large cohorts with a no vaccination policy which have ZERO or near zero autism

1. The Amish: We couldn’t find an Amish child with autism who wasn’t vaccinated or adopted.
2. A large clinical pediatric practice I am personally very familiar with has eschewed the use of all vaccines and acetaminophen and achieved a zero autism rate over the past 25 years even though autism rates were skyrocketing in adjacent clinics. Furthermore, despite the lack of vaccination, the kids were also uniformly healthier than the kids in any of the surrounding clinics. This means that we can end the autism epidemic merely by altering individual choices we make. Unfortunately, this clinic cannot “go public” with this information because the medical boards would take away their license to practice medicine because they failed to push the vaccines on their patients like they were told to do by the medical establishment.
3. There are other pediatric clinics in the US which eschew vaccination. For example, at Homefirst Medical Services, “We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.” What makes this believable is that other clinics who didn’t vaccinate reported the same results.
4. My survey of the parents of 10,000 kids showed more vaccines mean that an autism diagnosis is more likely.

The Homefirst clinic in Chicago run by Mayer Eisenstein had tens of thousands of patients and not a single case of autism over 47 years. He died in 2014.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-vaccines-dont-cause-autism-then

So…

(Kirsch must have tens of thousands of subscribers to his Substack, yet a mere 2,300 could be bothered to click-a-vote. My misanthropy grows daily, and I’m rapidly becoming a re-believer in the Christian doctrine of Original Sin.)

He presented the [quite convincing] evidence in that post to two autism-specialist “scientists” at MIT, his alma mater.

It’s so utterly despicable. It’s hard to escape the feeling and sense of how woefully lost is the very soul of humanity on this 3rd rock from the sun…and I use that description for the purpose of suggesting that maybe there’s just not a fucking thing very special about it, anymore. Maybe there never was, and the effort to suggest there was, is just a case of protesting too much.

Existentialism, I guess. Maybe those French philosophy dudes had it right. Everything is basically de la merde.

After being presented with the scientific evidence, scientists who remain silent about this injustice should be ashamed of themselves.

There is no excuse, no rock you can hide under.

This is a disgrace and there is no other way to put it.

While some scientists will use the excuse that they can’t look at this data and must “stay in their lane,” these two MIT scientists cannot make that excuse. They both have a special interest in this issue. Both have chosen to look the other way while our children continue to be damaged unnecessarily.

This is the single greatest easily preventable mass human tragedy of my lifetime. And those who look the other way and refuse to speak out are enabling it to continue. It is time we hold all of them accountable.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/what-do-two-top-mit-scientists-do

Something’s gotta give.

… And I don’t fear one single bit what that may be. But I think there is very little point in a world continuing on under that sort of despotic, institutionalized dishonesty, lying, and deception that does measurable devastating harm to real people.

Consider how devastating autism is to a family, compared with having a normal child.

There’s a couple n vacation here in my condo complex (some owners rent their units to vacationers coming for a month or more). They’re 30-something, perhaps Russian, but I haven’t listened carefully, and that’s partly because when the very attractive wife is down at the pool right below my balcony, with her 7-ish year-old son, he doesn’t speak. Clear non-verbal autism.

He just blurts out incomprehensible explanations to signal his excitation.

What a fucking drag that would be.

… And somebody really needs to do something to that life-form named Bill Gates. I don’t care what…