Children’s Hospital Gives ‘Health Hero’ Award To Dem Author Of Bill Promoting Child Sex Changes

Daily Caller | May 27, 2023

The Children’s Minnesota hospital system gave Democratic Minnesota state Rep. Leigh Finke an award Tuesday for her work in children’s health after she authored a bill designed to promote child sex changes.

Finke, who is transgender, was the chief author of HF146, Minnesota’s “trans refuge” legislation, which would prevent the enforcement of out-of-state laws that would remove a child from their parents for receiving transgender medical interventions, such as hormones or puberty blockers. Finke received the “Children’s Health Hero” award from the Minnesota hospital system for her work on the bill, according to a release from Children’s Minnesota.

“The law protects access to gender affirming care for Minnesotans and for those traveling to Minnesota from other states,” Children’s Minnesota said in a statement.

(***)

The New Underworld Order Cult

ILLUSTRATION: via Twitter

In an assessment of the term “cult,” we need to be very careful here as the kakistocracy — as part of the post-truth world they’ve created — likes to invert ethics and morals to taint those who think outside the box.

Winter Watch defines a cult as a social group with socially deviant beliefs and practices. This is further defined as Malum in se, meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited. The kakistocracy is pushing malum prohibitum hard, as applied to what it considers “wrong think.”

The kakistocracy cult want us shell shocked from rapidly changing false information overload, which leads to paralysis and fear. When people are in a state of fear, coupled with option paralysis, they are very susceptible to manipulation and easy to control.

While the masses are all dazed and confused and overly concerned with catching a seasonal flu, the kakistocracy cult is destroying families, small businesses and entire nations. They are rigging elections, and they are botching troop withdrawals to flood western countries with refugees. The American border is being invaded by hundreds of thousands of people.

The Crime Syndicate is buying up single-family homes and pricing the young in particular out of the market. They are printing endless money and inflating the currency.

Now, they have the Ukraine war and San Francisco Bust, which presents new opportunities for more unmitigated disasters, looting  and mismanagement with malice.

Destructive cults, gangs and syndicates are commonly associated with occult doctrines that provide a mechanism by which an individual, or a small group, can control the thoughts and behavior of large numbers of people. Members’ identities can be altered and members can be turned into de facto slaves.

Might these kinds of groups be formed and controlled by individuals and groups with totalitarian or criminal agendas as a means of covertly subjugating others?

The labeling of a “cult” needs to be constructed carefully.

The late Ted Gunderson used the term “satanic cult”; however, these cults could also be more discordian and nihilist. The dominant theme is moral relativism, or “do as thy wilt.”

Retired FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Revealed Star Chamber Justice System in Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald Case

The cult can form groups to self-promote their members in a like-minded secret society. This infiltration model is much wider spread than generally imagined.

For further reading on Winter Watch:

This type of organized cult is different from an exploitative cult. The later will twist established religions, while others claim to offer a more secular “truth.” Some encourage followers to self isolate and only communicate with other group members, all while sending money to the leader. A few simply tell people to drop everything to join a compound.

Enter the concept of egregore. Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a “thought-form,” a “collective group-mind” or a “hive mind.” It’s an autonomous psychic entity made up of and influencing the thoughts of a group of people. In psychology, the Group Mind is definitely recognized as one of the factors to be reckoned with in treatment.

The New Underworld Order Egregore

According to this mindset — New Underworld Order “believers” hold that only they are human or chosen, and everyone else is an animal to be exploited or slaughtered. This predatory egregore cult infestation is the way of the world today.

From the inner point of view, we may see it as a composite thought hive-mind charged with emotional energy. This energy is evoked from all those who are linked with the thought-form and, if there are those in the group who know something of the psychic mechanism involved, it can be directed upon any chosen target. It is obvious that such energy can be used for evil or control purposes.

Egregore derives from a Greek word meaning “watcher” — a thought-form created by will and visualization. A group egregore is the distinctive energy of a specific group of magicians who are working together, creating and building the same thought-form or energy-form.

This egregore process is unconscious but is intensified through the secret society initiation process, such as Skull and Bones, which is designed to open the mind to the spiritual through the egregore. Whether the group is organized to do good or evil, indoctrination can happen quickly.

As Gustav La Bon pointed out, reason is not part of the crowd mentality. Becoming caught up in the passionate hatred or love of an egregore can be hard to resist. An organized group with a very strong intention builds and maintains an egregore with its passion, and the thought form affects new initiates.

The power of the egregore to help and sustain a group increases over time through the repeated actions (ceremonies or rituals) of its members. The egregore can raise its members from the material and connect them to the divine or to the depths of human depravity. The Sabattean Frankists offer a prime example of the most dangerous egregore group of our times as is high level Freemasonry.

The Influence of Sabbatean Frankism on the World

An example of mass recruitment and mental implanting of the depraved egregore can be found in the videogame Grand Theft Auto V. Here the player can kidnap girls and boys and take them to a fortified cult compound and sell them to the ‘crazy hippies’.

They’re always putting references to these things into popular culture and 99% of us don’t really understand the real significance. It is an occult initiation of getting the average person to participate in their egregore wickedness to desensitize us to these things, to make us think this kind of conduct is only fiction or a joke. But misery loves company and they want to drag as many of us down to hell with them as they can.

Another standardized egregore is the Janus principle. Unlike the fully depraved implanting seen in Grand Theft Auto the Janus principle is when an outward benevolent, people-caring face is displayed in public. On the other face is a deep seated, soulless anti-human evil and egregore that is so great it is unimaginable to most normal humans who have souls.

For example cult-like educational institutions have force fed youth a steady diet of emotional bullshit, such as race equity theory and climate alarmism while deemphasizing things like fact-based data analytics and even basic math. How will this influence the choices of young people when selecting companies in which to invest? Will they more likely to choose a stock based on social equity rather than financial equity? In other words, will Marxist organizations get pumped and get undeserved funding?

Black Lives Matter is a classic example of putting forth a slogan that sounds woke and correct. Then when 50 blacks are gunned down in a weekend in Chicago, the two faced Janus is revealed as not a peep is heard from BLM.

In the spring of 2020, when oil was slowly recovering from negative territory, CNBC’s Jim Cramer told his gullible listeners to steer clear of oil stocks because they will never recover. According to this ass clown, Millennials won’t invest in oil stocks because they view it as unethical; therefore, everyone should steer clear. Instead, he proffered Bitcoin and cannabis.

The Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Scam

A group intentionally setting out to create an egregore must have certain ingredients (Wikipedia).

  • Emotion – An egregore is born when a group of people concentrate with emotion on a single goal or objective. The emotional aspect is crucial; simply thinking about a goal does not have the same effect. The emotion and intent must be strong, focused and sustained.
  • Secrecy – Secret societies, mystery schools, and political associations all have core teachings that are not shared with outsiders. Whether it is a privilege to know the secret, or the threat that disclosure will result in mortal harm, nothing tightens a relationship like a kept secret.
  • Segregation – Sharing a secret makes the group separate, apart from the masses. Special costumes, ceremonies, chants all add to the separateness and a sense of specialness. The distinction of them-versus-us focuses attention.
  • Ritual – Special rituals invoke the entity of the egregore, but also stir the imagination of the participants. The power of the ritual, especially one conducted in secrecy, should not be underestimated. Rituals have been used throughout recorded history to invoke the unseen powers to operate on one’s behalf.

Proof: author of #1 paper showing no link between vaccines and autism is corrupt

Anders Hviid - Research Leader Programme

A key author of the most widely cited study showing there is no link between vaccines and autism refused to supply the data, answer my questions about data integrity, and otherwise defend his paper. Even a $25,000 prize didn’t make a difference. Instead, he asked how to block me and then did so. Why would an honest scientist be afraid of scrutiny? They wouldn’t. They would be tripping all over themselves to show their study was legitimate and that I am wrong.

At the suggestion of anti-anti-vaxxer David Gorski, I threw down the gauntlet and challenged Professor Anders Hviid, one of the key authors of the most important study that falsely claims that there is no link between vaccines and autism, to supply the underlying data and debate a group of scientists who disagree with his paper. I even offered him a $25,000 prize if he could defend his study. A mutually agreeable neutral panel would judge the discussion.

He ignored my offer and asked his followers on Twitter how to block me.

This is not how an honest scientist would react. I’ve listed some very uncomfortable questions below that he simply cannot answer in writing or in a live discussion. So he can’t make the silly excuse that debates must be in writing. Certainly Yale Professor Jason Abaluck debated us on video when challenged his study. No problem for him. Is Professor Hviid any more special than Professor Abaluck? Nope. No chance.

Real scientists don’t run for cover when their work is challenged by credible scientists. They defend their studies like Professor Abaluck did. I commend him for that.

Here’s why:

I pointed out that the data they used in their study was flawed. Any honest scientist would say “Thank you! We will retract our paper.” Anders did the opposite. He ignored me and asked how to block me. Only someone who is corrupt would do that.

So now, here is the evidence for the world to see. Honest scientists do not behave this way when shown they are wrong.

Andrew Wakefield was right: vaccines cause autism.

Professor Anders Hviid and his colleagues published a paper A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism in 2002 in NEJM that has been widely cited by others (over 1,000 other papers) as strong evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism.

Hviid and his colleagues chose a study design that was designed to look credible but obscure any signal. So when they found no signal they could claim victory, that there was “no association.”

But the real meaning of what they found is that “the study design we choose is unable to find a signal.” That can either mean:

  1. The methodology was inappropriate to find a signal

  2. The data was corrupted

  3. There were confounding factors such as a change in reporting requirements that obscured a signal

  4. There is no signal

In Hviid’s case, the first three were true.

When I asked Harvard Professor of Epidemiology Martin Kulldorff why he thinks vaccines don’t cause autism, this is the paper he cites because it is “gold standard data.”

Nope. No sir. It was proven the data was unreliable.

This key paper, that is relied on by over 1,000 other papers, is deeply flawed because:

  1. they never looked at the best metrics designed to find a signal

  2. because the underlying data was later found to be inaccurate

  3. because it overstates his conclusion. The study didn’t prove there is no link. It just proved that the methodology he used to try to find a signal was flawed as noted in the Letters section of his article. In short, the paper shows that the authors didn’t find a signal. They didn’t find a signal because 1) they didn’t look for the most obvious way to find the signal, 2) the data was flawed, and 3) the methods they did use were not sensitive enough

  4. There were confounding factors such as a change in reporting requirements that obscured a signal

  5. The conflicts of interest were never disclosed

In short, just because you didn’t find a signal doesn’t mean there is no signal. It just means you couldn’t find one. Get it?

Professor Hviid refuses to show us the underlying data or defend his study. Even after I offered him a $25,000 incentive to do so.

I wanted to ask Professor Hviid some questions about his study such as:

  1. Can we see the data? Why not? Why is it a secret? Could it be that you are hiding something?

  2. Wouldn’t this paper showing the underlying data you used is flawed invalidate your results? If not, why not? Why didn’t you retract your study when you learned this?

  3. Why didn’t you look at autism diagnoses relative to the time of MMR vaccination in your study? This would be the most sensitive measure. I found that diagnoses in the week after MMR vaccination is 5X greater than the week before vaccination. What did you find when you looked at that? Is that why you are hiding the data from us?

  4. How can you explain this 1998 paper in Pediatrics that shows a very clear link between vaccines and ASD? How can brain injury be vaccine dependent? How can there be a spike at 8/9 days after the measles vaccine only? How do you explain why that is statistically significant and no spike for the mumps and rubella vaccine? Why does the pertussis vaccine have a shorter time to symptoms (less than 7 days)? Doesn’t the fact that different vaccines (even though given at the same ages) have a dramatically different side effect profile mean the vaccines cause brain injury? If not, what is the more likely explanation?

  5. Why didn’t you and your co-authors reveal your clear conflicts of interest?

  6. Why didn’t they talk in the paper about the changing of the autism reporting rules in Denmark.

  7. Why would the CDC go to Denmark to do an autism study? They have 100% reported data in Medicare.

  8. Why did you ignore my request to supply the underlying data?

  9. Who else validated the data after the paper came out?

  10. Why was this method really the best way to detect causality? Why not look at the time the parent first noticed the autism relative to the nearest date of vaccination? If vaccination is not causal, this will be a flat line.

  11. Why did you seek to block me when I started asking questions about your paper? Is that what someone with nothing to hide does?

  12. Can you comment on this presentation regarding the conflicts of interest?

  13. I gave you an opportunity to comment on this article and provide corrections before I published it. Did you find anything wrong? If so, why didn’t you say anything?

  14. Shouldn’t the paper acknowledge that one of the co-authors, Poul Thorsen, M.D, is wanted by the US DOJ for fraud? He’s on the MOST WANTED list. And how is it that they can’t extradite him? I have a lot of questions I’d like to ask about how much you knew about this and what role he played in the research and why he’s on the MOST WANTED list.

  15. Why would the CDC do this? They have VSD and Medicaid data. Why go offshore? Why not just publish the VSD and Medicaid data? Why not just give Brian Hooker access to VSD and have him fail to find a signal? Easy. Fast. No paper required.

In short, his paper isn’t trustable and he’s acting in an evasive manner by refusing to supply the data or answer any questions.

Here’s the challenge I posted on Twitter:

If he’s telling the truth, he has nothing to lose and he’d be famous for showing the world that I’m wrong about vaccines causing autism.

How did he react to my challenge? By asking his followers how to block me! Check this out:

Since Anders refuses to supply the underlying data for his paper, refuses to answer any questions about his paper, and cannot explain what is wrong with the other papers, he loses the challenge.

He has literally thrown in the towel and admitted defeat.

Check this out. This happened right after I sent him my article for his review.

Is this what honest scientists do when they are challenged? Hide the evidence from public view? Nope.

Naturally, I hit “follow” to get access to his tweets. Don’t hold your breath on that one.

It failed all 7 elements of a sound hypothesis:

No luck. People wanted to, I asked them to DM me, none did.

He didn’t respond to any of the emails I sent him.

I thought you’d might enjoy reading them:

Professor Hviid,

I am a journalist in California. My friend Professor Martin Kulldorff speaks very highly of your work.

But I believe there is a very good chance that the truth may be the opposite of what you present in your study.

While we could debate this in the academic literature, if we did that it would take 10 years, and  I think it’s important we resolve this question ASAP. Don’t you agree?

Plus, we are not allowed to ask questions of the authors in papers.

Therefore, in the interests of getting to the truth ASAP,  please see this offer:

https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1662434565888016392?s=20

and this offer:

https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1662451275361910784?s=20

This is an opportunity for your research team to share an extra $50,000 in research funds which I’m sure you’ll put to good use.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Please respond to all via email and ALSO DM me on twitter (@stkirsch).

Also, can you tell me where I can download the record level data backing each study (the main autism study and the COVID safety study). We’d like to look at it.

Thanks!

There were many more emails. I won’t bore you. This guy is not an honest scientist.

You can contact John Stone who writes Age of Autism who has a lot more info on Anders.

I was sent so much information on these guys I could spend the next month or two writing about it.

If you’d like to write to Professor Hviid to let him know what you think, here is his contact info.

Also, I hear he’s looking for a big rock to hide under so if you have any suggestions, you can include that as well.

If you want to be creative, you could ship him a big rock with instructions on how to hide under it.

Professor Anders Hviid, a key author of what is arguably the most cited paper claiming vaccines don’t cause autism, has refused to defend his work, answer any of my questions, or supply me with the underlying data used in his study.

He knows if he did any of this, he would be discredited.

His paper is wrong and should be retracted. The underlying data is flawed and he has refused to acknowledge that. He never even did the subgroup analysis looking for the odds of an autism diagnosis 14 days before the shot vs. 14 days after the shot.

He has conflicts of interest that were not disclosed in his paper.

When a scientist runs away from legitimate questions and data requests like this, it generally means only one thing: the study is deeply flawed.

Is there any credible scientist who will defend this deeply flawed study? I think not.

So maybe it is time for the over 1,000 papers who relied on this flawed paper to note that in their studies? And maybe it’s time for some brave scientists to finally acknowledge the truth that vaccines can cause autism?

For every day we delay, another 1,000 kids will develop autism from vaccines. They should all be stopped. Now. Our kids will be healthier. We have a large medical practice over 25 years of health records comparing unvaccinated kids vs. vaccinated kids that proves this. There are simply too many studies that were done by honest brokers with no agenda that confirm the dangers of vaccination.

In fact, a simple twitter poll can tell people in seconds that vaccines cause autism. Try this on your own account and see what happens. You’ll always get the first result until the anti-anti-vaxxers attack your poll. Try it and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.

I will be coming out soon with an article summarizing the key evidence showing the vaccines cause autism. Professor Hviid can simply explain how the observations are consistent with his conclusion. That will be most entertaining!

Share

Key paper showing “no link between vaccines and autism” is fatally flawed

Anders Hviid - Research Leader Programme

A key author of the most widely cited study showing there is no link between vaccines and autism refused to supply the data, answer my questions about data integrity, and otherwise defend his paper. Even a $25,000 prize didn’t make a difference. Instead, he asked how to block me and then did so. Why would an honest scientist be afraid of scrutiny? They wouldn’t. They would be tripping all over themselves to show their study was legitimate and that I am wrong.

At the suggestion of anti-anti-vaxxer David Gorski, I threw down the gauntlet and challenged Professor Anders Hviid, one of the key authors of the most important study that falsely claims that there is no link between vaccines and autism, to supply the underlying data and debate a group of scientists who disagree with his paper. I even offered him a $25,000 prize if he could defend his study. A mutually agreeable neutral panel would judge the discussion.

He ignored my offer and asked his followers on Twitter how to block me.

This is not how an honest scientist would react. I’ve listed some very uncomfortable questions below that he simply cannot answer in writing or in a live discussion. So he can’t make the silly excuse that debates must be in writing. Certainly Yale Professor Jason Abaluck debated us on video when challenged his study. No problem for him. Is Professor Hviid any more special than Professor Abaluck? Nope. No chance.

Real scientists don’t run for cover when their work is challenged by credible scientists. They defend their studies like Professor Abaluck did. I commend him for that.

Here’s why:

I pointed out that the data they used in their study was flawed. Any honest scientist would say “Thank you! We will retract our paper.” Anders did the opposite. He ignored me and asked how to block me. Only someone who is corrupt would do that.

So now, here is the evidence for the world to see. Honest scientists do not behave this way when shown they are wrong.

Andrew Wakefield was right: vaccines cause autism.

Professor Anders Hviid and his colleagues published a paper A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism in 2002 in NEJM that has been widely cited by others (over 1,000 other papers) as strong evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism.

Hviid and his colleagues chose a study design that was designed to look credible but obscure any signal. So when they found no signal they could claim victory, that there was “no association.”

But the real meaning of what they found is that “the study design we choose is unable to find a signal.” That can either mean:

  1. The methodology was inappropriate to find a signal

  2. The data was corrupted

  3. There were confounding factors such as a change in reporting requirements that obscured a signal

  4. There is no signal

In Hviid’s case, the first three were true.

When I asked Harvard Professor of Epidemiology Martin Kulldorff why he thinks vaccines don’t cause autism, this is the paper he cites because it is “gold standard data.”

Nope. No sir. It was proven the data was unreliable.

This key paper, that is relied on by over 1,000 other papers, is deeply flawed because:

  1. they never looked at the best metrics designed to find a signal

  2. because the underlying data was later found to be inaccurate

  3. because it overstates his conclusion. The study didn’t prove there is no link. It just proved that the methodology he used to try to find a signal was flawed as noted in the Letters section of his article. In short, the paper shows that the authors didn’t find a signal. They didn’t find a signal because 1) they didn’t look for the most obvious way to find the signal, 2) the data was flawed, and 3) the methods they did use were not sensitive enough

  4. There were confounding factors such as a change in reporting requirements that obscured a signal

  5. The conflicts of interest were never disclosed

In short, just because you didn’t find a signal doesn’t mean there is no signal. It just means you couldn’t find one. Get it?

Professor Hviid refuses to show us the underlying data or defend his study. Even after I offered him a $25,000 incentive to do so.

I wanted to ask Professor Hviid some questions about his study such as:

  1. Can we see the data? Why not? Why is it a secret? Could it be that you are hiding something?

  2. Wouldn’t this paper showing the underlying data you used is flawed invalidate your results? If not, why not? Why didn’t you retract your study when you learned this?

  3. Why didn’t you look at autism diagnoses relative to the time of MMR vaccination in your study? This would be the most sensitive measure. I found that diagnoses in the week after MMR vaccination is 5X greater than the week before vaccination. What did you find when you looked at that? Is that why you are hiding the data from us?

  4. How can you explain this 1998 paper in Pediatrics that shows a very clear link between vaccines and ASD? How can brain injury be vaccine dependent? How can there be a spike at 8/9 days after the measles vaccine only? How do you explain why that is statistically significant and no spike for the mumps and rubella vaccine? Why does the pertussis vaccine have a shorter time to symptoms (less than 7 days)? Doesn’t the fact that different vaccines (even though given at the same ages) have a dramatically different side effect profile mean the vaccines cause brain injury? If not, what is the more likely explanation?

  5. Why didn’t you and your co-authors reveal your clear conflicts of interest?

  6. Why didn’t they talk in the paper about the changing of the autism reporting rules in Denmark.

  7. Why would the CDC go to Denmark to do an autism study? They have 100% reported data in Medicare.

  8. Why did you ignore my request to supply the underlying data?

  9. Who else validated the data after the paper came out?

  10. Why was this method really the best way to detect causality? Why not look at the time the parent first noticed the autism relative to the nearest date of vaccination? If vaccination is not causal, this will be a flat line.

  11. Why did you seek to block me when I started asking questions about your paper? Is that what someone with nothing to hide does?

  12. Can you comment on this presentation regarding the conflicts of interest?

  13. I gave you an opportunity to comment on this article and provide corrections before I published it. Did you find anything wrong? If so, why didn’t you say anything?

  14. Shouldn’t the paper acknowledge that one of the co-authors, Poul Thorsen, M.D, is wanted by the US DOJ for fraud? He’s on the MOST WANTED list. And how is it that they can’t extradite him? I have a lot of questions I’d like to ask about how much you knew about this and what role he played in the research and why he’s on the MOST WANTED list.

In short, his paper isn’t trustable and he’s acting in an evasive manner by refusing to supply the data or answer any questions.

Here’s the challenge I posted on Twitter:

If he’s telling the truth, he has nothing to lose and he’d be famous for showing the world that I’m wrong about vaccines causing autism.

How did he react to my challenge? By asking his followers how to block me! Check this out:

Since Anders refuses to supply the underlying data for his paper, refuses to answer any questions about his paper, and cannot explain what is wrong with the other papers, he loses the challenge.

He has literally thrown in the towel and admitted defeat.

Check this out. This happened right after I sent him my article for his review.

Is this what honest scientists do when they are challenged? Hide the evidence from public view? Nope.

Naturally, I hit “follow” to get access to his tweets. Don’t hold your breath on that one.

It failed all 7 elements of a sound hypothesis:

vaccines cause autism and Andrew Wakefield was right. So were all the parents of autistic children who suspected the vaccine. They were right too.

He didn’t respond to any of the emails I sent him.

I thought you’d might enjoy reading them:

Professor Hviid,

I am a journalist in California. My friend Professor Martin Kulldorff speaks very highly of your work.

But I believe there is a very good chance that the truth may be the opposite of what you present in your study.

While we could debate this in the academic literature, if we did that it would take 10 years, and  I think it’s important we resolve this question ASAP. Don’t you agree?

Plus, we are not allowed to ask questions of the authors in papers.

Therefore, in the interests of getting to the truth ASAP,  please see this offer:

https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1662434565888016392?s=20

and this offer:

https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1662451275361910784?s=20

This is an opportunity for your research team to share an extra $50,000 in research funds which I’m sure you’ll put to good use.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Please respond to all via email and ALSO DM me on twitter (@stkirsch).

Also, can you tell me where I can download the record level data backing each study (the main autism study and the COVID safety study). We’d like to look at it.

Thanks!

There were many more emails. I won’t bore you. This guy is not an honest scientist.

You can contact John Stone who writes Age of Autism who has a lot more info on Anders.

I was sent so much information on these guys I could spend the next month or two writing about it.

If you’d like to write to Professor Hviid to let him know what you think, here is his contact info.

Also, I hear he’s looking for a big rock to hide under so if you have any suggestions, you can include that as well.

If you want to be creative, you could ship him a big rock with instructions on how to hide under it.

Professor Anders Hviid, a key author of what is arguably the most cited paper claiming vaccines don’t cause autism, has refused to defend his work, answer any of my questions, or supply me with the underlying data used in his study.

He knows if he did any of this, he would be discredited.

His paper is wrong and should be retracted. The underlying data is flawed and he has refused to acknowledge that. He never even did the subgroup analysis looking for the odds of an autism diagnosis 14 days before the shot vs. 14 days after the shot.

He has conflicts of interest that were not disclosed in his paper.

When a scientist runs away from legitimate questions and data requests like this, it generally means only one thing: the study is deeply flawed.

Is there any credible scientist who will defend this deeply flawed study? I think not.

So maybe it is time for the over 1,000 papers who relied on this flawed paper to note that in their studies? And maybe it’s time for some brave scientists to finally acknowledge the truth that vaccines can cause autism?

For every day we delay, another 1,000 kids will develop autism from vaccines. They should all be stopped. Now. Our kids will be healthier. We have a large medical practice over 25 years of health records comparing unvaccinated kids vs. vaccinated kids that proves this. There are simply too many studies that were done by honest brokers with no agenda that confirm the dangers of vaccination.

In fact, a simple twitter poll can tell people in seconds that vaccines cause autism. Try this on your own account and see what happens. You’ll always get the first result until the anti-anti-vaxxers attack your poll. Try it and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.

I will be coming out soon with an article summarizing the key evidence showing the vaccines cause autism. Professor Hviid can simply explain how the observations are consistent with his conclusion. That will be most entertaining!

Share

The “Unvaccinated Are Unclean” Compilation

By JOHN LEAKE

During periods of peace and prosperity, when the prevailing social mood is positive, it’s often tough to know who is truly decent and reasonable. During times of stress and fear, people are far more inclined to show their true colors. Many get swept up in the emotions and groupthink of the frightened herd, thereby losing their capacity for critical thinking and principled action. Under such circumstances, if you insist on maintaining your individuality, you will likely be shocked to discover that even people whom you took to be old friends may join the herd in ostracizing you.

2021 and early 2022 were just such a time for those of us who didn’t fervently embrace the crude dogma of the COVID-19 Vaccine Cult. The following video is a remarkable expression of how easily a modern, advanced civilization can embrace the most atavistic, tribalistic, and scapegoating passions.

Especially revolting is the way in which these expressions are enveloped in lies and cheap virtue signaling. We the unvaccinated will forbear the impulse to retaliate, but we won’t forget the pronouncements made in this compilation, or the people who made them. Because we are wise, we will try to obey St. Paul’s injunction to suffer these fools gladly.

Most Important Medical History Lesson We Must Never Forget

  • One of the most egregious lies spread by mainstream media hosts and health authorities like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky was that the COVID “vaccine” would stop the spread of infection, thereby ending the pandemic. It was a provable lie, because none of the COVID shots had ever been tested to see if they could prevent the spread of infection

  • As hospitals filled up with “vaccinated” individuals who were supposed to be immune, the PR slogan “Pandemic of the unvaccinated” was endlessly circulated — until the reality of the situation finally became too obvious to ignore. Then, suddenly, hospitals and health authorities simply quit keeping track of COVID hospitalizations

  • The list of COVID measures that were arbitrary, unscientific and plain stupid is a long one. For example, in Michigan, hardware stores that were allowed to remain open were not allowed to sell carpet, flooring, furniture, garden supplies or paint. Businesses were also prohibited from advertising any product other than “groceries, medical supplies, or items that are necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation and basic operation of residences”

  • In South Africa, shops could only sell closed toe shoes (no sandals). In Victoria, Australia, people were prohibited from venturing more than 5 kilometers from their home, and in Great Britain, you had to order a substantial meal if you wanted a pint of ale

  • Among the most laughably absurd measures were having school children play instruments wearing masks with holes cut around their mouth, or playing inside one-man tents

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

The video above features a compilation of some of the most absurd COVID narratives we were indoctrinated with over the past three years. For example, “No one is safe until everyone is safe” was one of several lies we heard repeated across media platforms.

First of all, there were and are vast differences in risk depending on your age and general medical history, and this was evident within weeks of the outbreak. Secondly, the data showed that 99.5% of the population would survive COVID.

So, the reality was the complete opposite of this fabricated PR campaign slogan. Had we been told the truth, we would have been told that “Most of us are safe,” rather than “None of us are safe.”

Next, the “no one is safe” slogan morphed to “No one is safe unless everyone is vaccinated.” With that, it became open season to harass, intimidate, threaten and discriminate against the unvaccinated. Every COVID case and death was blamed on them, no matter how irrational. And while the talking heads paid lip service to the desire to “save lives,” they had no qualms about wishing death on the unvaccinated.

As questions about the safety of the experimental gene transfer shots mounted, another campaign slogan was concocted: “Don’t do your own research.” At the same time, “Trust the science” was trending. What that meant was that you were supposed to trust that what you were told WAS “the science.” Actually looking at published science, that made you a dangerous moron.

One of the most egregious lies spread by mainstream media hosts and health authorities like Dr. Anthony Fauci alike was that the COVID “vaccine” would stop the spread of infection in its tracks, thereby ending the pandemic.

It was a provable lie, because anyone who had gone against the grain and done their own research knew that none of the COVID shots had ever been tested to see if they could prevent the spread of infection. The only “promise” they ever held was that they might reduce the symptoms of infection. Have any of these people apologized for spreading lies? I can’t think of one.

Even Fauci and Walensky, then-director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stated that you could not get COVID if you got the shot. Both later got sick with COVID several times, as did countless others who fell for and vigorously promoted this false propaganda.

Still, the brainwashing continued. As hospitals filled up with “vaccinated” individuals who were supposed to be immune, the PR slogan “Pandemic of the unvaccinated” was endlessly circulated — until the reality of the situation finally became too obvious to ignore.

Then, suddenly, hospitals and health authorities simply quit keeping track of COVID hospitalizations. Problem solved. This way, they didn’t have to admit that what we had was a pandemic of the vaccinated.

In a March 15, 2021, article,

attorney at law Glenn Roper also reviewed a long list of arbitrary COVID measures that “bore little connection to health and safety” and were nothing more than “an exercise of raw government power to control its citizens.” Six of the worst offenders in this regard were:

  • Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who:

    • Forced certain stores that were allowed to remain open to block access to specific areas. Hardware stores, for example, were not allowed to sell carpet, flooring, furniture, garden supplies or paint.

    • Prohibited businesses from promoting or advertising any product other than “groceries, medical supplies or items that are necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation and basic operation of residences.”

    • Banned motorboats, jet skis and other watercraft, while allowing the use of kayaks, canoes and sailboats.

    • Prohibited residents from traveling to a second home or a vacation rental.

  • Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, who prohibited people from gathering with anyone from another household, even outdoors.

  • Villages in New York that banned the use of leaf-blowers, as blowing dust into the air would create “a hazmat situation.”

  • Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who imposed a “no exceptions” mask rule. Everyone above age 5 had to wear a mask indoors and out, including when alone. While Roper doesn’t mention this, Massachusetts also required golf courses to place pieces of pool noodles in the bottom of the golf cups, to prevent you from touching the sides of the cup.

  • Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who banned all nonessential travel, including walking.

  • The mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, banned drive-in church services for Easter. A federal judge reversed the ban, stating the order was something “this court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of ‘The Onion.’”

Similarly absurd rules can be found across the world. In South Africa, for example, government officials ruled that shops could only sell closed toe shoes (no sandals), and short-sleeved shirts could only be worn if you had a jacket or long-sleeved jersey on top.

In Victoria, Australia, people were prohibited from venturing more than 5 kilometers from their home,

and in Great Britain, you had to order a substantial meal if you wanted a pint of ale.

In Scotland, the crowd size for public events was limited, but not for private ones, and in Peru and Panama, men and women were only permitted to go outside on alternate days.

“But it wasn’t just the measures themselves that were troublesome. The enforcement of these new laws was also overzealous and absurd,” Roper wrote.

For example, in Encinitas, California, police cited 22 people for “watching the sunset” and “having picnics near the beach.” “Violations carry fines of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail,” Roper noted.

California police officers also chased down and arrested lone paddleboarders and surfers, and in Brighton, Colorado, a man was arrested for playing with his 6-year-old daughter on a near-empty softball field.

The same insanity was taking place in other countries. A family in England was told by a policeman to go back indoors because “people died yesterday.” They were in their own front yard.

All of this is extremely problematic, as it points to a breakdown of the very structure of our government. As noted by Roper:

“In each case, COVID restrictions were imposed by executive branch officials — governors, mayors, sheriffs, and law enforcement — relying on broad grants of power delegated by legislatures.

The legislators did not write or vote on the restrictions themselves. Instead, it was left to the officials who are responsible for enforcing the restrictions to decide what is banned and what is allowed.

That approach is contrary to the separation of powers that underlies the American system of government. Under our system, power is supposed to be divided among different branches that check and balance each other, for the protection of our rights and freedom.

Laws are supposed to be enacted by the legislative branch. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws, not make them. It is that constitutional structure that helps protect our liberty and freedoms.”

Roper’s list of absurd and arbitrary COVID measures could have been far longer. Remember these images? This was how a high school band in Wenatchee, Washington, was forced to practice in early 2021.

According to officials, singing or blowing into an instrument could spread the COVID virus, so high schoolers practiced holed up in one-man tents. It was mindbogglingly stupid when it first happened, and it’s not getting any less absurd with the passing of time.

“Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action — almost any action — as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat.” ~ Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch

Other schools took the absurdity to even higher levels, having the kids practice wearing masks with holes cut out for their mouths.

In mid-May 2023, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch leveled harsh criticisms against government’s response to the COVID pandemic, from local to federal. In his eight-page ruling in the case of Arizona v. Alejandro Mayorkas, he stated:

“Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private.

They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct.

They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.

Federal executive officials entered the act too … They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement.

Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.

While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress — the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws — too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few — but hardly all — of the intrusions upon them …

Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces.

They can lead to a clamor for action — almost any action — as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force.

We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties — the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes …

Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.

But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.

Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation.

Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.”

Gorsuch also calls for a review of the National Emergencies Act, and for state legislatures to reexamine the scope of emergency executive powers at the state level, because “Rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}” data-component-name=”ButtonCreateButton”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.