18

The Autism Vaccine

On horses, crooked smiles and other things.
18

The physicians and nurses who routinely turn a blind eye when parents suggest vaccines have harmed their children are equally complicit. Some fear for their jobs, but most blindly reject any claim of harm from a parent if it involves a vaccine.

- Maready


Share

I just finished Maready’s The Autism Vaccine.

It was MUCH better than I expected, and I always start with high expectations with Maready. I think he is the best at making vaccine injury science understandable to laypeople. He is one of the best citizen journalists I’ve come across while also being one of the best story tellers. I cannot recommend the book highly enough.

The second half especially that delves into what we know, or think we know, about the science of brain injury is simply stunning.

There are so many highlights in the book, but I will mention one that stood out for me. He goes back in history to explain the origin of the instruction of aluminium into the vaccines and in doing so explains the history of the second widely used vaccine, the diphtheria shot. Well, it turns out that the diphtheria shot that was given to millions was simply horse serum. Yes, you read that right.

Dr. Hermann Biggs, the chief bacteriologist of the New York City Health Department, was visiting Europe on business and saw firsthand the techniques Roux and Behring had developed to make diphtheria antitoxin. They realized that guinea pigs could not produce enough material for commercial use. Even sheep, the next animal on their list, were apparently unable to satisfy demand, so they settled on the largest animal they could readily obtain—the horse.

If the antitoxin wasn’t perfect in its ability to save, then perhaps its shortcomings could be supplanted by sheer volume. Biggs was impressed upon seeing the European production facilities and telegraphed back home immediately to begin purchasing horses in order that the children of New York might have a ready supply of this, potentially the first effective treatment ever devised by humans for a horrible disease. Although funds wouldn’t be available until the next year, such was his excitement that Biggs paid for the animals himself.

As the stables at 57th and Third Avenue began to fill with horses and Biggs returned from his trip to Europe, the arduous task of creating antitoxin would begin. The animals were first given a tiny dose of diphtheria in order to trigger what they hoped would be a non-lethal immune response. Eight days later, they would receive another administration of bacteria, this time doubled in volume. If the horses remained healthy, this process would be repeated for two to three months until they were able to withstand enormous doses. At this point, a cannula was inserted into the horse’s jugular vein, and several liters of blood were drained off. The blood was chilled on ice, where it would separate into two parts. Coagulated dark red blood cells would settle to the bottom while a clear liquid, referred to as serum, remained on top.

The serum was siphoned off and tested on guinea pigs for its ability to protect them from infection. Varying amounts were employed to gauge the strength of the antitoxin. The serum was then purified—a process whose effectiveness would soon be called into question—then sealed in small glass jars and distributed around the city for general use. By the beginning of 1895, thirteen horses filled the stables of the New York College of Veterinary Surgeons, their bodies drained of the antitoxins their immune systems had produced against the invisible poison of diphtheria.

That’s what The Science looked like about 120 years ago. Injecting millions with horse blood. Personally, I don’t think much has changed today.

Maready ends the book with a Discussion, that has several important passages in it that I want to share below.

Also, the above video can be found on YouTube for now, but I saved it in case it eventually gets memory holed.


Discussion

Just as I was finishing this manuscript, I announced the launch date and title of the book through social media. As autism and vaccines have become such a contentious subject, the reaction was predictably pronounced. A petition was started asking Amazon and Apple, the printed, digital, and audiobook distributors, to ban the work from their platforms. A counter-petition was launched, and the ensuing race turned into an online signature war. A much more serious battle is being waged within the political sphere as many states consider removing more personal liberties, specifically in regard to what medical procedures might be required against someone’s consent. The furor over the issue has even reached the federal level, where just recently, one-sided discussions were presented before government officials as if it were a balanced overview of the debate. The politicians making profound decisions about our personal liberties are woefully lacking in both medical and historical knowledge about their potential impact. It is frightening to see immature, hysterical charlatans signal their virtue to the world by repeating tropes they have never bothered to research for themselves. They mean well, of course, but so, too, did many of history’s worst dictators.

Regardless, The Autism Vaccine may have arrived at the perfect time. The debates are raging, and mandatory vaccination laws are being drafted left and right that will likely increase the rates of the disorder. If the story that I have told is true, we have a very big problem on our hands, the likes of which no one—me or anyone else—is prepared to deal with. If the story I have told is true, we may have inadvertently created generations of damaged children that will extend far beyond the cessation of what initially caused it, for as many of these girls grow up to become mothers, they may—without any additional vaccines—have other problems to deal with.

This particular issue—maternal immune activation—creates another serious dilemma. Many are pushing for the mother-of-all scientific studies—a large vaccinated versus unvaccinated cohort to compare the rates of autism and other illnesses, a final piece of research that could settle the debate once and for all. There is nothing unethical about this type of research, as there are plenty of unvaccinated children at this point. If children were asked to forego vaccines as part of the study, it might be considered problematic, but as they already exist in nature, there should be no issue. Unfortunately, this study may be too late. If maternal immune activation is an actual problem—which it appears to be—the unvaccinated children of these mothers may be affected by vaccines she received as a child. As a result, the study would actually need to be modeled with vaccinated versus unvaccinated mothers—and their unvaccinated children. Even then, with some scientists suggesting the problem could extend across multiple generations, the reverberations of vaccines and the aluminum they contain may still be felt decades from now.

Another insidious problem exists. The issue regarding vaccines and autism has become so impassioned that most people will doubt whatever a study determines if it does not suit their liking. This is particularly true for the parents who have asked government health officials to conduct more adequate safety studies on the vaccine schedule as currently administered to children, a request which has been met with silence. Even if such a trial were to be conducted, based on their past track records, few would likely trust the results.

In short, it does not feel like the government health agencies have the ability to be honest anymore. They are so heavily invested in aggressive public vaccination, their policies regarding its administration so totalitarian, it has become difficult to accept them at their word. Today, on the Centers for Disease Control website, are several half-truths and outright fabrications regarding the potential association between vaccines and autism. CDC officials have been called out, shown the errors using their own previous research as proof, and yet the errors remain, a testament to the unflagging confidence in vaccines they feel they must project.

There are many who don’t trust that vaccines are as safe as they have been told, and unfortunately, in the attempt to prop up the loss of faith, public health agencies have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, nearly always siding with their pharmaceutical counterparts over any concerns of parents. Because of this, we would seem to be at an impasse. Current public health officials have squandered the trust and respect bestowed upon them from the decades of hard work of their predecessors. The public is losing faith in vaccines altogether, and the despotic maneuvers being enabled to ensure their forced administration will do nothing to restore it.

The physicians and nurses who routinely turn a blind eye when parents suggest vaccines have harmed their children are equally complicit. Some fear for their jobs, but most blindly reject any claim of harm from a parent if it involves a vaccine. Because of this, many parents, with children who have clearly been injured by their immunizations, have returned for another round or two of shots, only to see their children regress even further. This has created enmity between doctors and their patients, a disconnect clearly audible in the tone of nearly any vaccine-related conversation during a pediatric visit.

A large database set up to document issues, called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, is nearly unused by most doctors, and nearly unknown by most parents. Even after insisting their child was harmed by a vaccine, many doctors will refuse to log the event into VAERS—fearful of the repercussions it might cause. As a result, many parents are left to fend for themselves, unsatisfied with the vague diagnosis given to them by their doctor, a label often designed to avoid implicating vaccinations as a cause rather than providing insight into options for recovery.

It is a strange phenomenon to witness. If any other medicine prescribed by a doctor caused a reaction—hives, headaches, fatigue—they would immediately ask you to stop using it and look for alternatives. If a mother reports her baby having seizures—for the first time in their life—on the way home from a shot visit, she will often be dismissed as paranoid or a conspiracy theorist for believing vaccines harmed her child. This is the madness of vaccinations and one of the main reasons people are quickly losing faith in them—the obvious coverups their pediatricians or doctors engage in has nearly ruined their profession.

I hope this book and others like it begin a much-needed discussion on the likelihood that vaccines play a significant role in the onset of autism. We have exhausted all other options save this one, an obvious cause that doctors—famous throughout history for their inability to examine themselves as a potential cause of their patient’s suffering—have never looked at. For those of you keeping track at home, there have been numerous epidemiological studies looking at the MMR vaccine and autism. Currently, there are very few that look at any of the numerous other vaccines, particularly when it comes to aluminum-containing shots, and certainly none that examine the entire schedule as recommended.

As I mentioned earlier, it is unfortunate that I do not even bother to ask for studies anymore, so confident am I they would not be conducted honestly and with integrity. I have said it elsewhere, but I believe science is simply history without the guns, a collection of events that happened and are retold according to the bias of the observer. There is nothing, particularly with epidemiological studies, from preventing any capable scientist from manipulating the cohorts—filtering or holding out certain people groups—to more closely resemble the result those who funded the research were looking for. With “bench science,” or studies created in the lab, this becomes a bit more difficult. Regrettably, proving vaccines can cause autism is much easier than proving they cannot. In the laboratory, injecting animals with enough aluminum would certainly cause some of them to develop the behavioral deficiencies of autism. In the field, where epidemiologists collect and sift through reams of data, the results of bench scientists can be invalidated with the click of a mouse.

A final difficulty in employing science to understand that which history has already shown: fear. Any study which seeks to understand the way in which vaccines may cause autism—either through encephalitis or direct neurotoxic harm—must replicate the fear a child experiences when taken into a doctor’s office for the 5th or 6th time, pinned down to the table by nurses, possibly their own parents, and injected multiple times. I believe this to be the single most important factor in the onset of neurological injury through vaccination, an onset which often coincides with the age at which they show the most fear.

The book goes into great detail about this point. It is worth reading to understand the neuro-mechanics of fear alone and its relationship with the delivery of aluminium to the brain. And especially its relationship to why autism is so heavily biased towards boys rather than girls.

If you have young boys, that are being taken in for the “wellness” visits and are being held down against their will as the needle approaches them. The terror they feel in that moment forms part of the aluminium to brain delivery mechanism. And you owe it to your boy to understand what the hell is going on.

In animal studies, the way stress is often induced is specifically by restraint, the same mechanism often employed in the administration of pediatric vaccines. Obviously, no scientific study on earth would ever receive funding or ethical approval using this design—a clear indication as any to me that perhaps what we’re doing every day, without giving it a second thought, may in fact be very, very wrong. If a university setting wouldn’t dare allow such a study to happen, and a pharmaceutical company wouldn’t dare fund it, we must ask ourselves why we are allowing the creation of laws to force our children to undergo the exact same thing—many times throughout their childhood rather than the once or twice a study would likely entail. There has to be a better way.

Ironically, the reason so many ignore the obvious cause of autism is because of the intense fear they themselves feel. If vaccines do cause autism, then what do we do? “We can’t stop vaccinating,” they might say, “they have saved humanity from certain death.” For those who truly believe this, it is understandable how autism and vaccines create such anxiety and hysteria. They are truly afraid of what the future might hold if vaccines are in fact the only thing standing between a life well lived and the deaths of millions. The scope of this discussion is too big for this book, but you can get a quick glimpse of why many of the pediatric vaccines on our current schedule are in fact, unnecessary in another book I have written called Unvaccinated: Why Increasing Numbers of Parents Are Choosing Natural Immunity to Protect Their Children. It is a short book you can read in an afternoon and offers a quick dip-in-the-pool. If all of these pediatric vaccines were completely necessary and they were causing autism, we would be in a real mess. Fortunately, most of them are unnecessary in first-world countries, and the solution to end autism may in fact be fairly inconsequential. It will never happen when fear is so effectively employed to manipulate the ignorant into compliance. It will only happen once the majority of people have re-learned how to think for themselves and are forced to rely upon themselves rather than the empty promises of government officials.


Something which may interest history buffs regarding Heller-Weygandt syndrome, an autism-like disorder I mentioned which briefly appeared in early 1900s Austria: Isolated cases of people with autism do appear in medical literature before 1935. It was rare, but you can catch glimpses of it if you look hard enough. By reading through Charles Bell’s accounts of nerve damage in the early 1800s, you will find obvious cases of people with what we would now call sensory processing disorder, usually alongside other issues that clearly point to metal poisoning.

When a few children began experiencing the autism-like symptoms of what was labeled Heller-Weygandt syndrome, scientists in Germany were experimenting with alum in the diphtheria antitoxins being given. Two scientists named Freund and Sternberg published several reports starting at least as far back as 1899, documenting their techniques using alum to attempt to clean up diphtheria serum. They did not purposefully leave the alum as scientists would later begin to do in the 1930s, but regardless, it is interesting to find such a clear reference to alum being used in diphtheria injections in that very area of Europe around the same time these few early cases of autism-like illness appeared. I tried to track down whether their solutions were being used in Austria but couldn’t confirm. Given their work was published in German, it’s likely Austrian scientists had read of their methods.


The possibility that autism is an asymmetrical brainstem injury should provide some hope additional recovery techniques may be developed. Why the body prefers to route certain neurological functions like language on one side and not the other may be related to the asymmetry of the lymphatic system, but regardless, it might be possible—with these side-preferences in mind—to design behavioral therapies that focus on transitioning what was lost onto the other side of the stem, where functionality is intact. It is still early on in this hypothesis, but I believe it may offer improvement for those who struggle with language or abstract thinking. For this reason, I think it is vital we conclusively determine whether the brainstem is the epicenter of autism, and whether it is most often an asymmetrical injury or not. If these two hypotheses are true, it should narrow our focus and allow money to be spent more efficiently on a specific range of treatments.

Learning to differentiate between the autism of encephalitis—particularly the chronic infections of the auto-immune variety—and the autism of neurotoxic damage is important. Each one has a different immunological profile, and with advances being made in treatments for autoimmune disease and aluminum chelation, the correct response—if recognized quickly—may ameliorate many of the symptoms children face.

Like previous medical terms such as imbecile, moron, or mentally retarded, “autism” and “Asperger’s syndrome” will likely soon be considered offensive, sunk to the bottom of the ocean by their own weight. We will find new terms that feel more optimistic, less painful, less encumbered by decades of misunderstanding and hurt. Someday soon, there may exist refined labels which offer us more specificity in the way we diagnose.

Rather than autism, we might call it dominant side brainstem injury, and rather than Asperger’s syndrome, we may call it non-dominant side brainstem injury. An unlucky few may get a bilateral brainstem injury diagnosis. Additional qualifiers may designate the extent of vertical damage along the brainstem, singling out whether the reticular formation was involved or not, while others may specify the source of injury—neurotoxic or encephalitic. Even these hypothetical terms may one day be felt as offensive.

We are quickly approaching the 100-year anniversary of injecting metals into children. I hope that by then—in 2032—we will have been able to confront the demons we have created and take whatever steps are necessary to right the wrongs of the past hundred years. Whatever the nomenclature ends up being—whether autism or encephalitic dominant side brainstem injury, we will likely spend the anniversary of injected aluminum looking back on this period as a time of hopeless ignorance, when we were blinded to the obvious truth sitting directly in front of us. That is my my hope, at least. We have around a dozen years to begin to make a change. If we don’t, the alternative will be far worse.


Lies are Unbekoming is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share


Thank you for reading this Substack.

Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to a good cause.

I am always looking for good, personal GMC (pandemic and jab) or childhood vaccination stories. Shared stories are remembered and help others.

In the comments, please let me know what’s on your mind.

You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com

If you are Covid-jab injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment

Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:

FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein

FREE eBook: The Climate™

FREE eBook: What is a woman? - “We don’t know yet.”

18 Comments
Authors
Unbekoming