Obviously, there will not be new research. Instead, “old”, pre-existing research and data will be reviewed and presumably analyzed for quality and validity and reliability. Some have already performed this type of review and analysis in other contexts. It will be interesting to see the outcome:
🚨 BREAKING: HHS Secretary @RobertKennedyJr declares that by September, the United States will uncover the cause of the autism epidemic and eliminate exposures:@POTUS: "Think of that, so it was 1 in 10,000 children had autism, and now it’s 1 in 31." pic.twitter.com/Y81wxzOfF1
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) April 10, 2025
I think Kennedy will call balls and strikes objectively.
It will be interesting to watch, Fred. There are some powerful interests– including in the US Senate– who are lined up against him.
I suspect you could just interview a dozen sets of parents (at random) of autistic kids about the timing of the appearance of the autism with respect to a battery of vaccines and get your answer.
J. Sobran, medical scientists quibble about what attributes make a study valid. As a general rule, when a whole body of literature– i.e., more than one good study– corroborates and confirms a given hypothesis, it becomes more of a slam dunk. But good studies are needed with certain attributes. Some who have reviewed the literature on the relationship between vaccines and autism have concluded that we have already reached that point.
Triad, I was being a bit flippant. 2 out of the 2 parents I know who have autistic kids experienced the onset right after a bunch of vaccines. They feel pretty sure.
Our medical industrial complex has become so corrupt, they can design a study to find whatever suits their mood. Look at how they vaccinated the control group in the Pfizer mRNA trials to destroy the ability to identify the long-term harms of the vax.
J. Sobran, I had recognized that you were trying to make a point. And there is no doubt that direct observation demonstrating a temporal relationship between cause and effect has some value.
It used to be true that the medical community would evaluate a body of literature, and discern the clinical application and worth of a given finding or study. This can be much more laborious– and require a lot more expertise– than it might seem. Part of the problem is that many of the medical journals have become corrupted, and doctors are no longer independent. Nearly everything has become corporatized.
Is the statistic correct that presently in the US 99% of physicians work for corporations or government? Only 1% independent?
The number I had heard most recently is 85% working for corporations or hospital systems. I am not sure about government and independent.