The Anatomy Of A Vaccine Study...

[00:00:00] ...lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity. What is at stake is more than one call country. It is a big idea. A new world world world...

[00:00:51] You're listening to The Alchemical Tech Revolution, and I am your host, Wayne McRoy. Good evening, good morning, wherever you are around the world. Tonight, we're going to take a look at the anatomy of a vaccine study. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, tonight we're going to broach the subject of the sacred cow of scientism once again, vaccines and their relationship to autism.

[00:01:18] And what is this about? Well, let me tell you something about this. This actually is something I took a stab at some ten years ago. Ten years ago, before I went public with any of this information, I had actually sat down and began to dissect dozens upon dozens of vaccine studies and find the fraud prevalent within all of them.

[00:01:44] And this is no different tonight. We're going to take a look here on approximately the 10th anniversary of the publication of this study that was presented in the mainstream media as the evidence that once and for all dispelled any connection between autism and vaccination.

[00:02:07] This was a big study. This was a big study. It was touted in the news media very prevalently 10 years ago this month, April of 2015. It's when they published this all over the place, and we're going to take a go at that because I'll tell you what I found when I read and analyzed the study in depth. And I will tell you that this is just an example of what they do with all of these studies.

[00:02:35] Now, for a frame of reference, let's lay down some foundational aspects of what we know about these types of studies. Well, you may be surprised to understand that all vaccine studies involve conflict of interest.

[00:02:56] That's right. Conflict of interest in every single vaccine study ever presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. And of course, there's problems with this whole notion of peer review as well. And we'll get a little bit into that here as we go tonight. But first things first. Why is it a problem if there's conflicts of interest in health care? Well, I googled this.

[00:03:26] And this is the answer that was compiled from various different sources, mainstream scientific sources, as to why it is that conflicts of interest in health care situations are so important to take into consideration. Well, it says here, conflicts of interest in health care are problematic because they can compromise patient care by influencing health care providers' decisions based on personal or financial gain rather than the patient's best interests.

[00:03:56] This can lead to unnecessary procedures, inappropriate treatments, and compromised quality of care, ultimately undermining the trust and integrity of the medical profession. Here's a more detailed explanation. It says, When a health care provider's judgment is swayed by personal or financial gain, they may be less likely to recommend the most appropriate and beneficial treatment plan for the patient.

[00:04:24] For example, a doctor with a financial interest in a particular medical device might be more inclined to recommend it to patients, even if it's not the best option for their condition. This is directly from places like the National Institutes of Health and other places that have prominent positions in the health care industry. And make no doubt about it, it is an industry.

[00:04:50] So they're talking about the trouble with conflicts of interest. Yet every single vaccine study ever presented has a conflict of interest involved, because who is it that performs these vaccine studies? Well, it is the very corporation that manufactures these things. That's right. You may be shocked to find out that there is not some neutral third-party agency or any such thing that evaluates vaccines for safety and efficacy.

[00:05:20] No. It is directly the company manufacturing it most of the time that performs any type of a study in this regard, into efficacy and safety. And then the third-party, the quote-unquote third-party sources, that may look at some vaccines in various studies, are also a revolving door of those in and out of the governance structure.

[00:05:50] of the health care industry, in and out of the CDC, in and out of the National Institutes of Health, and sitting as members on some committee or as presidents, overseeing major corporations involved in pharmaceutical manufacturing like Pfizer and the like. It's a revolving door of those with a vested interest

[00:06:17] in promulgating the use of vaccines and other pharmaceutical interventions. So I find that interesting. They will readily tell you, yes, conflicts of interest are a problem, and yet they make a disclosure of conflicts of interest on every single medical study that there is, and nobody has anything to say about that.

[00:06:46] Even though they admit, full well, who they work for, doesn't seem to be a problem. Not in the peer-reviewed journals anyway, does it? This is one of the concerning aspects of this we're going to touch upon. And this is not the only concerning aspect. So we have that whole notion about conflicts of interest right out of the gate here. this can be very problematic.

[00:07:14] But as for the details of the particular study we're going to look at, we're going to go back to this one particular one. This was a big study that was shown all over media to once and for all put the final nail in the coffin between the connection between autism and vaccines. That's how it was touted all over media and people ate it up.

[00:07:43] But we're going to look at that study from 2015. And we're going to look at the way that it was presented to the public. And then we're going to look at the actual facts behind the study. And I will demonstrate to you how it is that they skew and manipulate data to make it show whatever they want. And they readily admit to this by the way as well. We'll get to that.

[00:08:13] This is just one example of many of how this is done and how these things are presented to you. And then all the doctors and all of the big pharma shills out there go walking around and tell you vaccines are safe and effective. They do not cause autism. We don't know what causes autism but we certainly do know that it's not the $4.9 trillion a year

[00:08:40] cash cow of vaccines that do so. You heard me right. $4.9 trillion per year as of 2023. That is what the healthcare industry makes in a year's time as of 2023. And it's probably way more than that by now. $4.9 trillion. Trillion. They have a vested interest in keeping you unhealthy. And yet

[00:09:11] everybody overlooks this conflict of interest. That's right. The healthcare profession has a vested interest in keeping you unwell. They have massive financial rewards for keeping you unwell. and most doctors offices are offered incentives to get you fully vaccinated. Do you know that? Do you know that they make hundreds

[00:09:40] of thousands of dollars potentially per year extra just by ensuring that a certain percentage of their clientele becomes fully vaccinated? They incentivize doctors to push this and they give them very little education as to the true nature of vaccines? I would ask you next time you're to see your doctor ask them to name five ingredients in a vaccine and to tell you

[00:10:09] what it is that these ingredients do to benefit your health. See if they can answer that. I assure you they most probably will not be able to. They won't be able to tell you much of anything about it. I've had discussions with my own doctor about this. Many times they don't know and they don't know that they don't know. They just give you the line that the pharmaceutical rep tells them to give you.

[00:10:40] That's the other thing you don't know about. Anytime you go to your doctor's office and they want you to get a vaccine they'll tell you you need this one or that one and they strongly advise you get it. But what they don't tell you is they're given specific instructions on what to tell you in the vaccine package insert. If you are a doctor you tell your patient this. You can find these vaccine package inserts ladies and gentlemen they're easy to find and you'll be shocked

[00:11:10] at what some of the things are that they reveal to you. You see the problem with vaccination is you are not given proper informed consent on any of this. vaccines. You never have been and you never will be because they don't want you to know what it is that the potential risks that are involved with these things can produce. They don't want you to know the side effects.

[00:11:39] They don't want you to know the negative aspects of it. They just want you to accept carte blanche the notion that vaccines are the bargain basement deal of the 20th century. They're the greatest technology ever achieved in healthcare and that they have saved millions upon millions of lives. Where do they get those numbers from? How do they determine how many millions of lives vaccines have saved? They pull these out of thin air. These numbers are pulled out of thin air.

[00:12:09] You cannot prove a negative. How do you prove a negative? But yet they will claim vaccines vaccines are the bargain basement technology of the 20th century and they have saved millions upon millions of lives and you know what? They don't have any evidence to really back that up. You know what they base that upon? They base that upon things that have never been proven

[00:12:36] to really have any merit in this world. They claim that antibody teeters tell them this that because they give you this shot this vaccine this inoculation against something and your body has an immune response to that injection and produces what they call these antibody teeters they say that now you have functional immunity or functional resistance

[00:13:06] to whatever the toxin is that they injected into you whether it be a live virus or some other thing some other antigen that they give you but are antibodies proof of resistance or immunity to a thing? This has never been fully established. Just because you produce antibodies

[00:13:36] as a reaction to having poison injected into you does not mean that you are no longer going to be susceptible to attaining some illness but this is one of the commonalities that is given in the vaccine science. Don't you trust the science? Well when you realize how corrupt and compromised the science is not only because of

[00:14:06] conflict of interest but because of the methods that they use to ascertain their data then maybe you wouldn't trust the science either but that's why we're doing this. So what exactly in this 2015 study was being said? I'll give you the CNN version. This was as of a CNN news report about this vaccine study performed in 2015

[00:14:36] released to the public in April of 2015 10 years ago. And it said here story highlights researchers examined the records of 95,727 children in an 11 year window. And then it has a quote here from one of the scientists who performed this study. Quote, we found that there was no harmful association end quote says a pediatrician who worked on this study.

[00:15:06] Researchers also found no increased autism risk from the vaccine for children with older siblings with autism. so this study, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, it says in the CNN story is the latest piece of research to debunk the myth associating the MMR vaccine with autism. Ah, now let's hold on for a second. First and foremost, this vaccine study,

[00:15:36] which by the way will show you how the numbers they're telling you here are fraudulent to begin with, this was only studying one particular vaccine. But yet, they want you to believe that this completely debunks any notion whatsoever of any vaccine being connected to autism in any way whatsoever. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, the only vaccine that they ever looked at in association with autism is the MMR vaccine.

[00:16:05] They've never looked at any other vaccine for its connection. They've never done the studies, and they continue to not do the studies. So when RFK is coming out and saying we're going to find out once and for all what is contributing to this autism epidemic by September of this year, it's not going to happen. They're going to come out, I could almost assure you of this, because this is the line always that the medical industrial

[00:16:35] establishment has given us. They'll tell you that it's just better diagnoses that are going on, that autism has always been with us, and it's nothing new, it's just we have better diagnostic tools for figuring it out. Really? Well, I've taken this apart in my books I've written about this. That is most certainly not the case. This is not something that ever appeared in the literature or history of

[00:17:04] mankind until around 1910 or 1911. Nothing like this existed beforehand, although they've developed this grand theory that this neurodiversity that is autism has been with mankind for all of human existence, and they try to present it to you in the

[00:17:34] most positive way possible, and all of this is disingenuous. They're trying to normalize this condition. They've been doing so for the past 40 years. Now, here's the thing. If you haven't been paying attention since 40 years ago, the numbers of cases of autism have

[00:18:03] gone from approximately 1 in 10,000 in around the late 1980s to 1 in 31 today. Now, what else has changed along with these rates of autism? Well, all you have to do is look at the vaccine schedule

[00:18:34] to notice that, hey, you know what? It looks like this increase in the number of vaccines given to children since the 1980s seems to go along the same curve as the rise in autism. But you dare not question that. This is their sacred cow. You dare not question the sacred cow. Vaccines, they are the greatest thing ever according to mainstream science. You see, the human being, as made by his creator, is flawed.

[00:19:05] He's flawed. He's such an imperfect creature. He's got so many things wrong with his creation and design vaccines. That we need to take early interventions just so the human being survives. What did we do before vaccines? Now, you could go back and do a study on the history of vaccines and you'll find that there's been problems with them from the very get-go.

[00:19:35] And the very first recipients of vaccines, well, they had some very negative outcomes. Let's put it that way. You could go research all that for yourself. This whole notion that vaccines are responsible for the elimination of diseases is a fraudulent thing. All you have to do is look and see there's still measles. They claim they eradicated the measles in the United States some 20 some years ago,

[00:20:04] but yet here it is still, and they'll try to blame the unvaccinated for this, which doesn't make a lick of sense. Does your vaccine work? If it works, then you wouldn't be catching the measles. If your vaccine doesn't work, then you have an even bigger problem. Don't you? If you could somehow magically catch a disease from an unvaccinated

[00:20:33] person, a disease that you're vaccinated against, why would you blame the unvaccinated person? It's the medical intervention you took to prevent yourself from getting this. that seems to be the problem. It doesn't work. You've been lied to on so many levels. They're also trying to indoctrinate you into believing that measles is a

[00:21:02] deadly, really bad thing. Yes, measles has had some really negative outcomes for some people in the past, but it's a common childhood illness that has been existent with us for a very long time, and the numbers, the numbers for deaths for measles cases do not align with what they're trying to convince you of.

[00:21:32] In fact, if you actually do the research, and I have, I actually did an episode of SGT report with Sean back in 2018 or 2019 now. I think it was 2018. You see, there was this resurgence of measles cases once again in the New York City metro area, and there was all kinds of talk about that, and we went at that back then.

[00:22:02] You see, what's old is new again. It's the same old thing. This disease that's been eradicated for 20-some years in the U.S., well, wouldn't you know, there's cases every single year, especially among vaccinated populations. Strange. But, anyway, the whole point here is if you actually do the research, you'll find out that you are 108 times more likely to die from an MMR vaccine reaction than you are from the measles itself.

[00:22:32] Did you know that? That's based upon data from the years of approximately 1994 through 2014. But at any rate, we took that apart in that episode, and you'll have a hard time finding that now, because since then they've demonetized and taken down Sean's YouTube channel that it was on at that point, and he lost a lot of that

[00:23:02] data, but there are still a couple recordings of that episode out there. But we did that. We sat and we took that apart, and we even looked at that Brady Bunch episode that presented the attitude to the measles back in the 1970s. It was no big deal. But once again, this is something they're trying to make into a big deal, because this has to do with their sacred cow. Understand that.

[00:23:31] This has to do with their $4.9 trillion a year cash cow, their sacred cow. They don't want to give up those profits. But I know I've gotten a little off track here. Let's get back on the rails. So, according to Autism Speaks that year, 2015, April, it's published April 20th, 2015,

[00:24:01] this says a study of over 95,000 children included 15,000 unvaccinated 2-5 year olds and nearly 2,000 kids already considered at high risk for autism. So this was touted in the mainstream as a huge scientific study. It was touted to be one of the largest scientific vaccine studies ever performed. And it was popularly broadcasted through the media that the

[00:24:31] conclusions of this study supposedly debunk the link between vaccines and autism for once and for all. After all, it's a huge study that supposedly comprehensively compared over 95,000 test subjects over a span of 11 years, purportedly comparing the vaccinated to unvaccinated subjects performed ostensibly by a group of brilliant and unbiased scientists. And they found absolutely no

[00:25:00] troubling data, did they? Well, what could possibly go wrong with all of that? Well, as you'll begin to understand here shortly as we go through this, much of this information that has been touted about this particular vaccine study can be found to be fraudulent or misleading at best. Let's take a closer look at who it is that actually performed this groundbreaking massive study,

[00:25:30] and we'll learn a little more about how this process works. So who performed this study? Well, let's find the names of the doctors whose names are on study. And they are as follows.

[00:26:04] Now, who are these folks? scientists? Well, wouldn't you know, almost all of them work for the same corporation. Isn't that interesting? Who are these people? Well, let's get into it. This was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which, by the way, is one of the most prestigious scientific peer

[00:26:34] reviewed journals out there. And several of these employees are recorded as being employed by the Lewin Group. Ms. Bukima and Dr. Bancroft are employees of Optum. Optum is a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health Group, and the Lewin Group is an Optum company. Ah, so I'm going to pause for a second. So the vast

[00:27:03] majority of these doctors working on this study work for United Health Care. Hmm. Interesting. It does go on to say here, the Lewin Group operates with editorial independence. No other disclosures are reported, and this is given under their conflict of interest disclosures. Funding and support that came for this project, this study, come from the National Institutes of Mental Health,

[00:27:33] the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and it gives the contract number here, but I'm not going to bore you with reading the contract number. Now the role of the funder slash sponsor, it says here. It says, the National Institute of Mental Health had no role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data, preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Ah, so

[00:28:03] they're telling you, they're giving you their plausible deniability here. The U.S. government agency has nothing to do with this. And here's the disclaimer that they give in the very next sentence. The authors are solely responsible for the design, conduct, data analyses, and drafting and editing of the manuscript and its final content. The contents of this article do not represent the views of the National Institute of Mental Health or the federal government. At least,

[00:28:33] that's what they would tell you. Of course, they have no qualms with making policy based upon this. Anyway, then it goes into additional contributions. Lee Breck, Ph.D., an employee of Optum, provided assistance with statistical modeling and interpretation. Dr. Breck did not receive compensation for his contribution to this article, at least not publicly disclosed compensation. Let's put it that way. So, what do we have here?

[00:29:03] We have here the admission that the people who perform this study obviously have a conflict of interest because they're working for United Healthcare Group. United Healthcare, didn't they come into the public attention just recently again, maybe the end of last year or something for some reason or another? I don't know, something with their CEO happened or something. Hmm, I gotta wonder.

[00:29:32] But anyway, so the people who conducted this research were employees of Optum's Lewin Group. The company Optum, who has the Lewin Group subcontracted under it as a subcorporation under it. All of them owned by United Healthcare. So what is the Lewin Group and what do we know about the Lewin Group? And who's responsible for determining what data was used in this study? And who's

[00:30:01] responsible for the all-important peer review of the study? Who funded the study and who benefits from it? Well, we went through and we named a couple of things. So we see who performed the study and who is it? The Lewin Group, primarily. So what do we know about the Lewin Group? That's L-E-W-I-N for those paying attention. The Lewin Group is a premier national healthcare and human services consulting firm

[00:30:30] with more than 35 years experience finding answers in solving problems for leading organizations in the public non-profit and private sectors. The firm has a long history of providing objective independent healthcare and human services policy analysis and consulting. The Lewin Group has considerable experience analyzing the impact of health reform initiatives on major stakeholder groups including

[00:30:59] employers, providers, governments, and consumers. Lewin analyzes primarily are based upon a model of the U.S. healthcare system called the Health Benefits Simulation Model which has been continually refined since 1989 when it was used to estimate the cost of alternative universal coverage proposals for the bipartisan Congressional Commission on Healthcare. Since then, the model has been used to analyze a

[00:31:29] broad range of health reform proposals at the state and federal levels. I'm going to pause for a moment. So, the Lewin Group uses a health benefits simulation model as a means of conducting analysis of data. data. This has been an ongoing collection of data since 1989. That's right, they've been collecting your medical information in a centralized

[00:31:58] utility since at least then. Anyway, associated with the Lewin Group on this paper was John Shields. Mr. Shields joined the Lewin Group in 1980 and has established the firm as one of the leading independent sources of information and analysis on the financial impacts of major health reform initiatives. He has testified before congressional committees and often works directly with members of Congress in evaluating and

[00:32:28] developing health reform initiatives. Mr. Shields was assisted by Mr. Randall Hout. Mr. Hout has worked for over 15 years with Mr. Shields in the development and refinement of this simulation model that is used, the health benefits simulation model. He has extensive experience in estimating the impacts of health reform initiatives and health spending. So, John Shields, head of the Lewin Group, one of the

[00:32:57] guys involved in directing these doctors conducting this study, one of their bosses, well according to Mr. Shields, Lewin's clientele include the government and groups with a variety of perspectives including the Commonwealth Fund and the Heritage Foundation. What have we heard about them lately? They seem to be right in cahoots with much

[00:33:27] of what's going on in the Trump administration right now. You see, this crosses the lines of party politics, ladies and gentlemen. This sacred cow of theirs crosses the political spectrum. So, Mr. Shields says of the Lewin Group, quote, The Lewin Group is committed to providing independent, objective, and nonpartisan analyses of policy options. And then he continues to say here, Not all of Lewin's reports see the

[00:33:57] light of day. Shields says, quote, Let's just say sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see, and in those instances they have the option to bury the study, end quote. He just told you in no uncertain terms that when they are conscripted to do a study, they sometimes do not publish the reports. I'm going to repeat that quote again.

[00:34:27] Quote, Let's just say sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see, and in those instances they have the option to bury the study, end quote. Are you beginning to see the fraudulent nature of some of these things? So getting back to it, this particular study, what was this particular study stated to be about? Well, it says the study was undertaken

[00:34:56] to evaluate whether or not children who had older siblings with autism were at a higher risk of developing autism after receiving the MMR vaccine than children who did not have an older sibling with autism. The study did not not in actuality conduct any controlled research on anyone. The data was compiled from Lewin's parent company, United Healthcare Group, a major health insurance company, by using patient billing and diagnosis codes to determine their

[00:35:26] health status. I'm going to pause. So think about that. So this study that was touted all over media as being definitive proof once and for all that vaccines do not have any connection to autism cited as saying that over 95,000 children over an 11-year study proved this. Well, here you're finding out the truth. There was no controlled study. It was just a company compiling

[00:35:56] information from patient billing and diagnosis codes to make determinations. The study used a large administrative claims data set spanning a recent 11-year period to examine associations between MMR immunization status and autism spectrum disorder risk in the United States. I'm going to pause again. So they only looked at one vaccine and they only looked at certain specific

[00:36:25] sets of data. The administrative claims database allowed for the estimation of associations free from potential recall bias. However, administrative claims data do present some important research limitations. Because claims are generated for payment, diagnoses and procedures that do not affect payment are likely underreported. Diagnoses for conditions that may eventually be ruled out can be overreported.

[00:36:54] And procedures and services that individuals receive through other payers may not be captured. For example, the MMR immunization rates in our study were 4% to 14% lower than rates reported in the National Immunization Survey. Thus, children in our study who are considered unvaccinated may have received vaccines in settings such as schools or public health clinics in which claims were

[00:37:24] not submitted. Going to pause for a moment here. So now you're beginning to see more fraud present. They consider them unvaccinated even though likely they probably were vaccinated. But just it wasn't attached to United Healthcare Group's records about this in their data set that they analyzed. So any gaps they had in data about patients, they considered them unvaccinated.

[00:37:52] And you see that it's 4% to 14% lower than what was anticipated. Interesting. This is one of the ways they cherry pick data. And how they use data and weaponize data in these ways. Anyway. Additionally, the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder was determined using a claims-based algorithm with a positive predictive

[00:38:21] value of 87%. There may have been children with ASD, for example, who did not receive care related to their ASD during the study period. However, we conducted a series of quantitative bias analyses to assess the potential effect of these measurement errors and do not believe these strongly influenced the findings of this study. Gotta pause for a moment. So in other words, we just completely disregarded all of this data. We did a statistical analysis and we

[00:38:51] decided, nah, we don't want to include that in the study. Let me translate that for you. That's what that means. So they used an algorithm based upon billing practices to determine who had autism and who did not in this study. There are also potential inaccuracies in the identification of siblings from claims because of assumptions made about family relationships among individuals on the same health plan. In the report given by Dr.

[00:39:21] Jane et al, of 95,727 children with older siblings who were included in the study, 1,929 had an older sibling with ASD and 994 children had ASD diagnosed. So now, here's what they're reporting in the news. They're telling you they did this 11 year study of 95,727 children and they determined that there's no connections between vaccines and autism.

[00:39:51] Here's what they didn't tell you. The study sample was actually much smaller. 1,929 had siblings with ASD and 994 had ASD diagnosed. And then they're making statistics out of this based upon these numbers. So are you beginning to see the fraudulent nature of this, how it's reported by the mainstream

[00:40:22] and how it actually really works? This is what you call cherry-picking data. So they're basing their analyses on 1,929 people out of this cohort of 95,000 plus. Is there a big disconnect there or what? Are you beginning to see the way that this gets done all the time and how this stuff gets presented?

[00:40:52] So it says here some parents of children with autism spectrum disorder may have chosen to delay immunization in subsequent children until they were certain any risk had passed. Such behavior, which arguably could enrich the immunization rate in the non-autism subgroup relative to the group that may have been showing early atypical development, might create the impression that the MMR vaccine is actually reducing risk for ASD. I'm going to pause for a moment here. So now,

[00:41:23] now they'll actually go there and they'll say, we may have evidence to show based upon some of this that maybe it actually reduces the risk. I don't think they drew that conclusion at the end of the study, but it's interesting that they'll go there and they'll present this because they always have to go that extra step, don't they? They'll try to tell you that there's some inherent benefit to this in regards to something else with these vaccines and we just see a recent example of that in the news cycle because now they're telling you

[00:41:54] that you may have a reduced risk for developing dementia if you go get your shingles shot. Do you see how they do this? Well, it's probably something very similar to this in that regard where they'll just go ahead and make the case based upon people's hesitancy to get the shot that shows that maybe once they do get the shot after some length of time that it doesn't develop over the course of time then.

[00:42:23] As it would during the study period. You see, they only do these things in certain study periods. So, for example here, if you are hesitant and put off getting the MMR shot while you were part of this 11-year study until after the study was almost completed at the end portion of the study and then you get your MMR shot in the last months of the study and you don't immediately develop autism, well, then they

[00:42:52] show that as a positive outcome for them, don't they? They show that in connection that maybe this has the benefit of reducing the occurrence of that. Same thing going on with these other studies that we see. I hope I'm making sense and I'm not losing you there. But at any rate, the only conclusion they say that can be drawn from the study is that there is no

[00:43:21] signal to suggest a relationship between the MMR vaccine and the development of autism in children with or without a sibling who has autism. Of course, that's always the conclusion they're going to reach. You see, this is how they design these studies. First of all, they come up with the result first that they want and then they design the study to show the result they want. This is the fraud that is peer review. This is the fraud that is pharmaceutical

[00:43:50] studies and especially those about vaccines. They already know what the outcome is going to be because you see, they design the study to show the outcome they want and they cherry pick and manipulate the data to get there. So they took this database information of over 95,000 people over the course of 11 years and they whittled it down to 1,929 people and

[00:44:19] they skewed all of their statistics to fit that group and they present it to the public in a totally different way. It's fraud, ladies and gentlemen. When taken together, some dozen studies have now shown that the age of onset of autism spectrum disorder does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The severity or course of autism spectrum disorder does not differ between vaccinated and

[00:44:48] unvaccinated children and now the risk of ASD recurrence in families does not differ between vaccinated or unvaccinated children. Let me translate that gobbledygook for you, ladies and gentlemen. So what they're claiming are unvaccinated children, who are probably likely vaccinated anyway, they're saying there's no difference in the numbers when we compare in this study based upon medical billing records, who's vaccinated and

[00:45:18] who's not, in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder. We are not seeing any differences. Now remember, they've already whittled down the numbers from over 95,000 to just under 2,000. Now think about this. It's cherry picking. This is an exact example of how the data is skewed to mislead you. So they admit in

[00:45:47] this study, they say despite the large sample size for the entire study, the RR estimates for the children with older siblings with autism spectrum disorder are based on a modest number of children, which is 1,929, including 134 with autism spectrum disorder. So it says, yet the upper bound never exceeds 1.44, implying that any true large effects are unlikely

[00:46:17] to be masked because of statistical imprecision. The findings of this study may not be as applicable to more ethnically and socioeconomically diverse populations that have less access to healthcare services. For example, in our population, the average age of autism spectrum disorder recognition based on claims was four years, several months earlier than the average age of ASD diagnosis in the U.S. population of four years, five months.

[00:46:47] So I'm going to pause for a moment. So they're basing this on some very selective data. That's what this is telling you. And they admit, they just give you this massive number to sound more convincing. Yes, we did an 11-year study of over 95,000 people and we determined this. When in fact, it had nothing to do with that number of people.

[00:47:18] They only based it on a very small subset in that group. So this shows the careful manipulation of the language that's used in the study and of the methods used in the study. Of the over 95,000 people supposedly participating in this study, only the data for 1,929 subjects was used to complete the study and draw conclusions. So not only are the numbers misleading, but the methodologies used to get their

[00:47:47] conclusions are questionable at best. You'll notice that they place disclaimers throughout the paper about possible statistical imprecisions. But in the next breath, they'll dismiss them by saying they do not believe that these strongly influence the findings of this study. They always do this kind of thing. Yes, even though some of these numbers may be imprecise, we don't think it affects the overall results of the study in any way, shape, or form.

[00:48:17] So how did this study of medical billing codes figure out who had autism and who didn't? This is the important thing now for consideration. It's one thing or another to say, okay, we have records of vaccination recorded in the medical database here. But how do you know who had autism and who didn't here? So they used various criteria here.

[00:48:47] Now in order to understand this, we're going to go back to the DSM manual 4. Because that was the one that was used at the time of this study. They've since upgraded to the DSM 5. And this is the diagnostic manual manual for various mental health disorders that is used and recognized in the medical community for diagnosing things. So they used the DSM 4, which was the standard

[00:49:16] handbook used for the classification of psychiatric disorders. Now according to the DSM 4, there are more than 600 different symptom combinations that meet the minimum criteria for diagnosing autistic disorder, one subtype of autism spectrum disorder. Previous research on age at diagnosis has focused on external factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, and intellectual disability.

[00:49:45] But instead of using that criteria from the DSM 4 that names over 600 different symptom combinations as being minimum criteria for diagnosing autism, what did they do instead? Instead they looked at the patterns of 12 behavioral features that were used to diagnose autism according to the DSM 4. So let's get this straight. And this is how they manipulate

[00:50:15] language in these studies as well. So they're not being straight with you in any way, shape, or form. So they used 12 different behavioral features to try to determine if the patient's billing information pattern fell into the criteria to diagnose autistic disorder, only one type of autism spectrum disorder. And they also used an older version of the DSM, the DSM

[00:50:43] 4, that excludes the diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome and childhood disintegrative disorder and PPD-NOS, which is pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified, as autism spectrum disorders, which they are currently listed as in the DSM 5. Now this study took place before they switched completely over to the DSM 5, but

[00:51:13] because of the 11 year period prior that they used to determine this information, they used the analyses and the criteria from the DSM 4 as a basis to work from. So they disregarded all of these different subsets of autism spectrum disorder, and they only classified one type, using 12 different behavior codes to designate that over some possible 600 different behavior combinations

[00:51:43] for a typical diagnosis of autism. So what does this say? I mean, speaking in regards to this DSM 4 versus DSM 5, for classifying these things, it becomes problematic to compare autism rates over the last three decades as the diagnostic criteria for autism has changed with each revision of the DSM, which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,

[00:52:13] which outlines which symptoms meet the criteria for autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. In 1988, the DSM did not recognize pervasive development disorder, not otherwise specified, or Asperger's syndrome, and the criteria for autistic disorder were more restrictive. The previous edition of the DSM, the DSM 4, included autistic disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, PDD, NOS,

[00:52:42] and Asperger's syndrome. Due to inconsistencies in diagnosis and how much we are still learning about autism, the most recent DSM, the DSM 5, only has one diagnosis, autism spectrum disorder. One must have both deficits in social communications and interaction, and restricted repetitive behaviors, interests, and activities. So it's telling us here, in no uncertain terms, that they only looked at a

[00:53:11] very small subset of what we would consider autism spectrum disorder in this study. Now think about that. autism spectrum. Now they're claiming there's no connection to any of this stuff, but they're only looking at one small subset of diagnoses in the autism spectrum. And they're claiming that it's over the entire spectrum. This is disingenuous at best and fraud at worst. So they're playing a

[00:53:41] definition game. So by limiting the definition of autism to the confines of only these 12 behavioral traits out of the possible 600 symptom combinations, you can see how the data becomes questionable. But that's not the only way the data is skewed. They also play around with other terms and definitions like what they consider unvaccinated. In this study, they defined being unvaccinated as not having a diagnosis code of

[00:54:10] receiving both doses of the MMR vaccine, which is one specific vaccine, by the way. Now think about that. They're only tracking one vaccine type. That's problematic in and of itself too, isn't it? They also admit right in the paper that there may be statistical imprecisions even about this limited definition of what they declare unvaccinated.

[00:54:39] There's never been a cohort study done comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in the United States, ladies and gentlemen. Never. They've never done that. And they probably never will because they know what the results will show. There have been studies in other countries done on this. And the results are staggering. You could go look into this. They have never done a proper

[00:55:08] comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the United States. Has never been done. They have also never studied any other vaccine than the MMR for a connection to autism. Never. They've only studied MMR vaccine and its connection to autism and the results that they've conveyed from this are questionable at best.

[00:55:39] So in no uncertain terms in this study, the unvaccinated children may have also received vaccines. This is fraud. Plain and simple. How would you define fraud? It's not being forthright with your data. What other methods have they used in this particular study to manipulate the data? Well, let's read a little more about this study.

[00:56:10] So they tell you when you actually read into the text of the study, and most people won't, even doctors, most of the time they'll look at the abstract and the conclusions, and that's it. They won't go through the rest of the data in the paper presented. But if you read in this paper, you'll find it says both time-varying and fixed covariates were also included in adjusted models to control for potential confounding.

[00:56:40] Separate claims-based indicators of the presence of seizures and vaccine-related allergies in the index child were included as time-varying covariates because they are possible contraindications to vaccines and are potentially associated with ASD status. So what does this mean? What's a covariate? First of all, a covariate is a variable that is possibly predictive of an outcome under study. A covariate may be of direct interest

[00:57:10] or it may be a confounding or interacting variable. Typically, when we use the term of covariate, we refer to the fixed covariate a variable whose value will not change over the course of time. The fixed covariates include the demographic information, gender, age, race, and baseline characteristics, weight, height, baseline, measure. Since covariate typically means fixed covariate, we often drop the term fixed. In contrary to the fixed covariate,

[00:57:40] time-dependent covariate or time-varying covariate, exactly the same thing, refers to a covariate that is not necessarily constant through the whole study and has different values at different time points. So what are they telling us here? They were using time-varying covariates. And why were they doing this? Well, they tell you in the very next sentence.

[00:58:09] This is from their own study. I'm going to read it again. It says, separate claims-based indicators of the presence of seizures and vaccine-related allergies in the index child were included as time-varying covariates because they are possible contraindications to vaccines and are also potentially associated with autism spectrum disorder status. So what does all this mean with the introduction of these covariates and this time-varying covariate, as they call it here,

[00:58:39] covariate? Well, in layman's terms, in this instance, what this means is that any symptom that's commonly associated with both autism and with adverse vaccine reactions is completely disregarded because, you see, it could be related to one or the other or both. So therefore, we have to throw that data out. Think about that. So you have a patient that displays a possible vaccine injury,

[00:59:09] but this is also a possible symptom of autism. So rather than, say, the vaccine reaction could lead to the autism or be related to the autism, what they do instead is say, well, maybe it was a vaccine reaction or maybe it was because the kid has autism. But the two can't possibly be from the same causative factor. So we're going to disregard that data.

[00:59:38] And that's exactly what they did. So this further limits the data set in regards to identifying not only autism but also actual vaccine reactions which may be correlated to the onset of autism. So basically, what they did is they cut out any data from the study that would indicate any connection between vaccines and autism. This is how they manipulate data, ladies and gentlemen. Because, you see, they called it a confounding variable. In statistics,

[01:00:08] a confounding variable is an extraneous variable in a statistical model that correlates with both the dependent variable and the independent variable in a way that explains away some or all of the correlation between those two variables. And this is exactly what they did in this study. So, what happens when somebody finds fraud like this in a vaccine study? what happens?

[01:00:38] I'll tell you what happens. It goes back for review. It gets retracted. Just like this study did. But, you see, it doesn't get fully retracted. What happens is they do a little tiny paragraph snippet in one of the upcoming versions of the peer-reviewed journal

[01:01:07] that it appeared in. And they do a retraction. And it looks like this in the case of this one. And it says, and it's got the doctor's names underneath it for this study, says, we regret the errors and apologize to the readers for any inconvenience. And it lists their affiliations and their conflict of interest disclosures. And it tells you what the mistake

[01:01:37] was. And it has a correction here listed. It says, correction, incorrect variable description. In the original investigation entitled Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among U.S. Children with Older Siblings with or Without Autism Published in the April 21, 2015 issue of the Journal of American Medical Association, an incorrect description of when MMR vaccine was received and a number of

[01:02:07] minor errors in data were discovered after publication. A letter to the editor accompanies this correction that fully explains the details and resolution of these errors. In addition, the article was corrected online. So what did they do? They come forward with a little bit of a retraction later on. They say, we made corrections, we acknowledge we made some mistakes and we didn't catch these until after publication until somebody called it out. And then they go and they make the

[01:02:37] correlating corrections here. They make the acknowledgement of it. And then they come out and tell you we don't think it affected the overall premise of the study in any way whatsoever though. So look at that. The original authors are the ones that review the study and make corrections. Isn't that convenient? Interestingly enough, the glaring inconsistencies don't ever affect the outcome of the study in any way. Keep in mind, these are completely objective

[01:03:06] and unbiased researchers who operate with editorial independence and they all just happen to work for the same parent company, United Health Group. So if they're skewing the data, why are they doing so? Well, let's take a closer look at this company and see if there's any conflicts of interest. So they have these conflict of interest disclosures. All authors have completed and submitted

[01:03:36] the form for the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jane, Ms. Marshall, and Mr. Kelly report being employees of the Lewin Group. Ms. Bokema and Dr. Bancroft are employees of Optum. Optum is the wholly owned subsidiary of United Health Group and the Lewin Group is an Optum company. The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence. No other disclosures are reported. So they tell you they all work for this company that has a vested interest

[01:04:05] in maintaining the status quo for the vaccine companies and nobody seems to have a problem with this. There's conflicts of interest. Did we not establish that conflict of interest in the medical field is an important thing to consider? And these people all have a vested interest in this vaccine study going a certain direction? Well, we know at the time of this study, a lady named Gail R. Walensky,

[01:04:35] who served as the deputy assistant to President George H.W. Bush for policy development as the administrator of the Healthcare Financing Administration, who is now at that time a director of Cephalon, a drug company, Quest Diagnostics, medical lab and research, SRA International, a technology information, and Gentiva Healthcare Services. Also, this woman was on the board for United Health. Also on the United Health board are Kenneth Schein, Executive Vice Chancellor

[01:05:05] for Health Affairs of the University of Texas and Michelle J. Hooper, former CEO of Stand Latler Drug Company Incorporated and who was currently at the time of the publication of this the director of PPG Industries AstraZeneca. So you have all of these people on United Health Care's board that were directly connected to pharmaceutical companies. This is a revolving door. This is what

[01:05:35] happens. There's more. Richard T. Burke, the chair of United Health's board, is also the director of Texas-based First Cash Financial Services and Arizona-based Meritage Home Corporation. Richard Doretta, another board member, is the retired chief financial officer of Johnson & Johnson, the healthcare products company and a trustee for Putnam Mutual Funds. Another director, William C. Ballard, formerly of counsel to Greenbaum, Dahl & McDonald,

[01:06:04] a law firm, was also chief financial officer of Humana, another large health insurance corporation. So hold on. Why are all of these people on the board of directors of United Health Group? They have these connections to different pharmaceutical companies and policy government organizations. You see why I'm saying it's a revolving door? And they all work for people who stand to make a direct

[01:06:34] profit from the manufacture and sale of vaccines. And of course, the incurred health effects and ramifications of those said vaccines. When you begin to see how insidious this all is, then you can begin to put the dots together and understand. So Michelle J. Hooper joined United Health Group's board of directors. This was the one who was the former

[01:07:03] CEO of Stadlanter Drug Incorporated, worked with AstraZeneca. So all of these companies companies that benefit directly from the manufacture and sale of vaccines. And these are the same people involved in the places that are supposed to

[01:07:33] regulate these things. As I said, the regulatory system for vaccines is a revolving door of the who's who of vaccine manufacturing. So you can begin to see the inherent problems with this. The CDC, the World Health Organization, all the major vaccine manufacturers, they know that vaccines could cause a variety of health problems. They have known for a very long time.

[01:08:03] They've been actively covering this up for a long time in the name of money and power. Vaccines, ladies and gentlemen, are all part of a now active eugenics program. Why would I say this? Well, they'll tell you in no uncertain terms what this is about. I'm going to give you a quote here from one Mr. Bill Gates.

[01:08:33] At a TED talk he gave where he literally said this verbatim, he said, quote, The world has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent, end quote. He literally said that verbatim

[01:09:02] at a TED talk. He said the quiet part out loud. And he told you the vehicle they would use to do so. You'll notice he named vaccines in there. He didn't name pharmaceutical drugs. He said, new vaccines. This is their sacred cow. Well, maybe you'll say, maybe these companies don't know that the vaccines are harmful, right?

[01:09:32] Well, I have here in front of me internal correspondence from Wyeth Pharmaceutical from August 27, 1979, regarding the DTP vaccine, the DTAP vaccine. In this internal memo, this internal correspondence evidence from Alan Bernstein to Mr. Hewlett, dated August 27,

[01:10:02] 1979, Wyeth Pharmaceutical. It says here, quote, after the reporting of the SIDS cases in Tennessee, SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome, cases in Tennessee, we discussed the merits of limiting distribution of a large number of vials from a single lot to a single state, county, or city health department and obtained agreement from the senior management staff to proceed with such a plan. This subject has been

[01:10:32] discussed with Charlie Young and the following guidelines were developed by PSRD. I would appreciate your comments concerning this procedure and the advisability of formalizing these guidelines. Interim measures in effect, allocation of stock to distribution centers is designated by lot number in a manner designed to leave the maximum variety of lot numbers in Great Valley and Marietta to service substantial orders. Managers and distribution centers carrying average inventories of over 3,000

[01:11:01] packages, approximate, have been requested to advise FSRD of any orders exceeding 2,000 vials. FSRD will then designate shipment by lot number furnishing additional stock as needed. So what does this memo mean? Well, they discovered there was particular lot numbers of their vaccine associated with these SIDS cases in Tennessee. So rather than pull this lot number from the market,

[01:11:30] they decided let's distribute it further and not put the same lot number in a particular geographic area. Thus, anybody would discover the connection. This is a real historical documented case. they know, ladies and gentlemen, they know. They don't want you to find out.

[01:12:00] Well, Dr. W.B. Clark, Indianapolis, in New York Press, January 26, 1909, said, quote, cancer was practically unknown until cowpox vaccination began to be introduced in 1853. I have had to do with at least 200 cases of cancer and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person, end quote. How about Dr. Frederick R. Klenner,

[01:12:29] M.D.? Quote, many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin vaccine, being made of monkey kidney tissue, has been directly responsible for the major increase in leukemia in this country, end quote. He's talking about SV40, ladies and gentlemen, which by the way has now been verified to be found in the COVID vaccines, in case you didn't know. Dr. Glenn A. Warner, M.D., says, quote,

[01:13:00] we have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people right and left just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison, end quote. How about one of the big deals in vaccinology? Dr. Albert Sabin, M.D., the creator of the oral polio vaccine, in a lecture to Italian doctors in Pachenza, Italy, on December 7, 1985,

[01:13:29] said the following, quote, Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the U.S. have failed to obtain any significant improvement over the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection, end quote. Well, what do you know? Doctors say some things. Has the CDC ever done a study comparing

[01:13:58] vaccinated children with unvaccinated children? No, they have not. Still hasn't been done. Are there any official vaccine safety studies conducted by a party who doesn't financially benefit from vaccine sales? individuals? The answer to that question, no. There are not. There is no

[01:14:28] third-party testing that goes on in the case of vaccines. It's all done by companies with a vested interest in the vaccine going to market. Let's put it this way. If you are the head of a company that has spent literally billions of dollars on research and development of a vaccine, you are going to assure that vaccine goes to market, aren't you?

[01:14:57] They bury the data that doesn't show what they want it to show. And most doctors are blissfully ignorant of all of this. They scarcely get an education about vaccines in medical school. And they'll tell you, oh, these vaccines are good. They'll tell you these vaccines are important. They tell you a lot of things, don't they? But where do they get

[01:15:27] their talking points from? From the vaccine package insert that says for doctors to tell their patients about the vaccine. They tell them what the benefits are, but they don't give the patient proper informed consent on this. They only tell you a small subset of the possible side effects or reactions to vaccines. They'll tell you most commonly, you may have a sore arm, you may have a low-grade

[01:15:56] fever, you may feel achy, you may get flu-like symptoms. But they don't tell you about Guillain-Barre syndrome. They don't tell you about Bell's palsy. They don't tell you about death as a possible adverse effect of this vaccine. That's right. It's there. vaccine package inserts.

[01:16:26] You just have to know where to look for it. But they don't tell you that. And this is the way vaccine studies have been carried out over the course of time here. They all have disingenuous aspects of them. They all cherry-pick their data, and they all come up with their predetermined result that

[01:16:56] they want to present to you before they even undertake the study. And then they tailor make all of the data to fit that outcome that they're looking for. And then all the peer-review people out there sit there and pat each other on the back because they got to keep the funding rolling in. And they agree with one another, oh, this study is well-designed and it's good.

[01:17:26] Despite the listing of conflicts of interest, they never seem to have any objection to conflicts of interest in vaccine studies. And then things that don't show the status quo that they want in the peer-review crowd, they get ostracized like Dr. Andrew Wakefield did. By the way, later they came back and exonerated him, by the way.

[01:17:58] Did you know that? You probably don't because they don't talk about that. They had to double back on what they said because Dr. Wakefield showed real compelling data that they couldn't contradict. But they ostracized him, they damaged his reputation, drug him through the mud, and then they later came back and apologized. But what good did it do to Dr. Wakefield? None. Now, I

[01:18:27] don't know about the authenticity of Dr. Wakefield's opinion on these things. I haven't really followed his work in a long time, but I do know that what he was looking at didn't really have anything much to do with how they present it to you. He was looking at the association between gut health and the advent of autism. And it's possible relationship with immunizations. And they destroyed, well, nearly destroyed

[01:18:57] that man's career because he dared to question the sacred cow. You see, that's what this is all about. They've built up this barrier around this sacred cow of vaccination. And that's what they're all about. They must protect that sacred cow at all costs. And why is that? Because it's their cash cow. To the tune of $4.9 trillion a year. And when you begin

[01:19:27] to understand that likely many of the health afflictions we have in the modern era can be attributed directly to vaccination, then you begin to see the scope and the depth of this and why they will spend billions upon billions of dollars to protect their sacred cow. You see, these people have a vested interest in keeping you unwell. Making a customer for life.

[01:19:59] And that's only if you look at it from the financial end of things, which is the end of things most people stop at. But there's something much deeper going on, something more spiritual associated with this. But we're not going to touch on that for the sake of tonight's discussion here. that's a discussion for another time. But most people are just interested in following the money, and if you follow the money with this, then you come to

[01:20:29] understand the scope of all of this. If you consider the possibility that vaccines may be the amalgamating factor to the contribution of innumerable health conditions and crises in the world today, then you begin to understand how deep this really runs.

[01:20:59] Anyway, this is all food for thought, and I don't know how long this broadcast will remain out there on the various platforms that it will run on. I'm very much disgusted by what's been done in the modern era in the name of the greater good and public health health, as they like to call it. And I want to call this stuff out because

[01:21:30] at the best, they're being disingenuous, and at the worst, they're engineering crises and disasters into the human anatomy. Like I said, this is all food for thought. I am not a medical doctor, nor do I pretend to be. I wouldn't want to be one as they are the number three cause of death in the United States. Standard medical care and errors in standard medical care are the number three cause of death in the United States, and it actually might be even higher

[01:22:00] than that. But I'm not a medical doctor. You do your own thing. You figure out what's best for you, but make sure you're acquiring proper informed consent before you do so. That's the important message here. I can tell you what I've found through looking at dozens upon dozens of these vaccine studies. You find cherry pick data, you find foregone conclusions that they already

[01:22:30] wanted presented, and you find the way they engineer the study to reflect the point that they want to drive home. And then you take into consideration the peer review process and how all the money circulates and exchanges hands in these high echelons of the medical community. And they are incentivized into presenting a certain opinion about this. Then you begin

[01:22:59] to understand how the scientific consensus idea occurs. And we have what we have today. Anyway, that is all the time we have for tonight, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank you all for tuning in. And I'll remind you, I appreciate each and every one of you. Have a good one now.