Where Is the Outrage? Profound Autism Didn’t Used to Exist — Now It’s Everywhere

If I had walked into my fourth-grade classroom in 1978 and told my teacher that one day virtually every school district in America would have multiple classrooms dedicated to children who could not speak, who required one-on-one aides, who wandered, who self-injured, who had seizures, who would require lifelong care, she would have assumed I was describing some dystopian science fiction novel. Yet here we are. Why are we just accepting it?

Country artist Tyler Hudson came bombing through the U.S. last week (he’s a Texan living in Australia), and one of his Instagram posts about autism did something that really doesn’t happen to me anymore after 22 years as an autism dad: it choked me up.

His post was a read-aloud excerpt from his new book, “The Missing Lyrics,” that discussed a poem written by his NT (neurotypical) daughter about his teenage son with profound autism, whose name is Lyric.

I was fine until these words:

“He’s never been to a party, never walked into a friend’s house … if I could cure him I would. Acceptance looks really nice on a T-Shirt until he bites himself so hard he bleeds. If I could cure him I would … It’s love that makes us fight for a cure, a life.”

I want to personally thank Tyler Hudson and his family for reigniting something in me that’s faded with time and with my focus on optimizing my son’s life: outrage.

I’m 57 years old, which means I have one advantage in this conversation that many people don’t: I remember the world before profound autism became commonplace.

That’s not nostalgia talking. It’s memory.

I went to elementary school in the 1970s. I played Little League. I rode my bike around the neighborhood until the streetlights came on. I went to church, summer camp, birthday parties, county fairs, airports, shopping malls and movie theaters.

I sat in packed gymnasiums and crowded cafeterias. I stood in line for the Scrambler at the fair behind a hundred kids I’d never met. I was surrounded by children everywhere I went, constantly, for my entire childhood.

Looking back, I can remember many of them. The kid who always picked his nose. The kid who couldn’t stop talking. The class clown, the bully, the shy girl, the future valedictorian. I even remember the girl in my sister’s grade with Down syndrome, because there was exactly one.

What I cannot remember — not a single time, not once, not anywhere — is a child who couldn’t speak. A child who wore a helmet because he smashed his head into concrete.

A child who shrieked uncontrollably for hours. Parents wrestling a teenage son twice their size to keep him from hurting himself. A mother scanning a parking lot in a panic because her nine-year-old bolted and can’t say his own name.

I’ve asked hundreds of people my age the same question, and I get the same answer every time, usually after a long pause and a puzzled look. They don’t remember it either. (Ask a former nurse or teacher over the age of 70, and you’ll get the same response, too.) If those children existed in our world, they were so extraordinarily rare that none of us ever encountered them.

Today, they are everywhere. And the most astonishing part isn’t that our world changed. It’s that we’ve stopped acting like it did.

Think about that for a minute. If I had walked into my fourth-grade classroom in 1978 and told my teacher that one day virtually every school district in America would have multiple classrooms dedicated to children who could not speak, who required one-on-one aides, who wandered, who self-injured, who had seizures, who would almost certainly require lifelong care, she would have assumed I was describing some dystopian science fiction novel.

She would have asked what happened. She would have wanted to know what we did about it. Any reasonable adult in 1978 would have.

Yet here we are. We built an entire infrastructure around this new reality — special education departments, behavioral therapy franchises, sensory gyms, respite care agencies, Medicaid waivers, sibling support groups, adult residential services, a whole professional class of people whose careers exist because of it.

We did it fast, and we did it without ever really pausing to say out loud what the construction of that infrastructure implies. You do not build all of that for a population that has always been there. And somewhere along the way we collectively decided to stop asking the most obvious question in the world:

How the f*&^ did this happen?

Keep reading

MMR Vaccine-Linked Deaths Outnumber Measles Deaths in 2026

So far in 2026, there have been ZERO confirmed measles deaths and at least THREE MMR vaccine-linked deaths in the United States.

Yet Americans hear virtually nothing about deaths occurring after MMR vaccination. Instead, the captured mass media blasted out headlines claiming that two children in Pennsylvania had died from measles—claims that have since fallen apart under scrutiny. Meanwhile, three highly concerning MMR-linked deaths have already appeared in VAERS this year:

2026 U.S. MMR VACCINE DEATH REPORTS (VAERS): 3

1-year-old boy: fatal cardiac arrest just ONE DAY after MMR

The first case involves a 1-year-old boy who suffered fatal cardiac arrest just one day after receiving MMR. The extraordinarily short interval makes the report impossible to simply dismiss as some distant event occurring long after vaccination. Along with MMR, he was also subjected to a battery of four additional vaccines—Varivax, Havrix, Vaxelis, and Prevnar 20—for five vaccines total at the same visit. The child was hyper-vaccinated and died the following day.

1-year-old girl: died from disseminated rubella after MMR

The second case is even more biologically concerning. A 1-year-old girl died from disseminated rubella after receiving MMR. She reportedly had an undiagnosed primary immunodeficiency when she was vaccinated.

This matters because MMR does not contain an inert rubella antigen. It contains a live attenuated rubella virus designed to replicate in a controlled manner and generate immunity. In a person with severe immune dysfunction, however, the immune system can fail to adequately contain or eliminate the attenuated virus. Instead of remaining limited, vaccine-strain virus can persist and disseminate into tissues throughout the body leading to multi-organ failure.

76-year-old woman: vaccine-strain measles detected during fatal pneumonia

The third case may be the most remarkable of all. A 76-year-old woman developed measles vaccine-associated pneumonia after receiving MMR, progressed to severe respiratory failure, and died after a 16-day hospitalization.

Critically, vaccine-strain measles was detected in her respiratory tract, including pulmonary samples. In other words, this was not simply a patient who happened to test positive for measles after vaccination. Molecular testing identified the vaccine strain itself.

The measles component of MMR is also a live attenuated virus. In immunocompromised individuals, the weakened virus can escape normal immune control, continue replicating, and produce serious systemic disease. When that process involves the lungs, it can produce measles pneumonitis or pneumonia, impair oxygen exchange, and progress to respiratory failure.


2026 U.S. MEASLES DEATHS: 0

Now contrast those three reports with what happened in Pennsylvania.

Keep reading

US Army doctor claims 28 troops died from Covid vaccines – Politico

A US Army doctor has testified that she knows of 28 US military deaths caused by Covid-19 vaccines, Politico has reported citing a court deposition. The US government is investigating 2,544 deaths reported following the jabs, the official has said.

Theresa Long, who also serves as an adviser to US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., reportedly gave the testimony during an August 14 deposition in a federal court case in Virginia. Neither her testimony nor her role at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had previously been reported.

Long allegedly said that the 2,544 unverified deaths were reported to the department’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Former US President Joe Biden ordered all US military staff to be vaccinated or be discharged from service, resulting in over 9,000 dismissals. After returning to office, President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon to offer reinstatement to those who had been discharged for refusing a vaccine.

Keep reading

Two CDC studies on vaccines and autism using the same data find opposite conclusions. Both cannot be correct

Two US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) studies of the autism rate in Denmark in the 90s: the first one, produced by admitted felon Poul Thorsen, says the autism rate increased from 1995 to 2000, which was then used to claim there is no connection between giving infants mercury in vaccines and autism; the second study found that the autism rate in Denmark not only decreased from 1995 to 2000, but was more than 10 times higher than the rate claimed by Thorsen. At least one of these studies is bogus. 

Thorsen was a Danish researcher hired by the CDC in 1999 to do a series of studies, including several on the role of vaccines causing autism. He was indicted for embezzling more than $1 million from the CDC and other crimes by a US federal court in 2011.  He lived openly in Denmark, where he was an instructor at Aarhus University, but was finally arrested and extradited to the US in 2025. Yesterday he pleaded guilty.

The first study, ‘Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data’, a widely publicised and highly influential study released in 2003, claimed that mercury in vaccines played no role in causing autism because the rate of autism in Danish children increased after mercury was removed from Danish-produced vaccines in 1992. 

Another CDC study, ‘Recurrence of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Full- and Half-Siblings and Trends Over Time: A Population-Based Cohort Study’, led by Therese K. Gronborg and released in 2013, however, shows the exact opposite: that the rate of autism in Danish children decreased after mercury was removed. And if the increasing rate of autism claimed in the earlier study showed that mercury had no role in causing autism, then logic would also require that the rate of autism going down, as shown in the current study, indicates that mercury in vaccines may very well have a great deal to do with causing autism. 

Keep reading

FDA Approves Moderna XFG COVID Vaccines 81 Days Before Teen/Adult Safety Study, 126 Days Before Children’s Study

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Moderna’s new XFG-formulated COVID-19 vaccines on August 27, 81 days before a human study specifically designed to evaluate the safety and immune response of the new formulations was scheduled to begin.

Pfizer’s XFG COVID vaccine formulation was approved on the same day, equally without safety data for its new formulation.

FDA approved the 2026–2027 formulas for Moderna’s SPIKEVAX and mNEXSPIKE vaccines, which are claimed to contain genetic instructions corresponding to the alleged JN.1-lineage XFG subvariant.

But FDA’s own Aug 27 approval letters show that a Phase 3b/4 human study specifically evaluating the “Immunogenicity and Safety of MNEXSPIKE and SPIKEVAX 2026-2027 Formula” is not scheduled to begin until November 16.

The first interim results are not due until March 26, 2027.

For younger children eligible to receive the new SPIKEVAX formulation, a separate human safety and immunogenicity study is scheduled to begin even later.

In other words, FDA approved Moderna’s new XFG vaccines first.

The human studies specifically evaluating the new formulations come afterward.

The regulatory pathway allows FDA to rely on claimed evidence from previously licensed formulations rather than require a new human safety trial of every updated formulation before approval.

But that raises consequential health, informed-consent, regulatory, and accountability questions:

  • How can FDA determine that a newly reformulated vaccine is safe before formulation-specific human safety data exist?
  • What evidence justifies carrying earlier safety findings forward to a changed product?
  • And why is FDA requiring a Phase 3b/4 study specifically to evaluate the new formulas’ “Safety” only after Americans are permitted to receive them?
  • And most fundamentally, if FDA is approving a newly reformulated vaccine before human safety data specific to that formulation exist, is the agency fulfilling its responsibility to independently establish that products are safe before Americans receive them, or shifting that uncertainty onto the public and collecting the answers afterward?

Congressional committees have confirmed that the FDA “is not meeting important federal safety requirements to protect its employees and the public while also failing to prioritize scientific data quality delivered from FDA laboratories.”

You can contact the FDA here.

And Moderna here.

Keep reading

CHD Scientists Call for Retraction of Danish Study Claiming Aluminum in Vaccines Is ‘Safe’

The controversial 2025 Danish study on aluminum in vaccines should be immediately retracted because the study’s own data contradict the authors’ conclusion, according to a new peer-reviewed article by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker and Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski.

Hooker and Jablonowski’s article was published this week in Integrative Medicine: A Clinician’s Journal.

Jablonowski told The Defender that the Danish study, published July 15, 2025, in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is “a good lesson in how bad science can propagate.”

The study claimed to find no link between aluminum in childhood vaccines and 50 negative health outcomes, including autism, asthma and autoimmune disorders.

Since then, the Danish study has been cited 36 times in published research as evidence that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are safe, Jablonowski said.

The study received so much media and academic attention that it ranked in the top 5% of all research outputs, according to Altmetric, a data influence company.

But that attention doesn’t mean the Danish authors’ conclusions were correct, Jablonowski said. In their critique, he and Hooker presented a detailed analysis showing a mismatch between the Danish study’s data and the authors’ conclusions.

“The study that convinced the world that aluminum in vaccines does not cause autism was a facade,” Jablonowski said. That facade crumbled under scrutiny, he said.

“We were left with a heap of unanswered questions and evidence that aluminum in vaccines is positively associated with neurodevelopmental disorders.”

Keep reading

Does the Flu Vaccine Prevent Death?

Dear Editor,

My letter is concerned with a topic of utmost importance: The effect of the flu vaccine on flu-related death. That’s the ultimate endpoint of interest for vaccine effectiveness (VE) research, yet it is not captured in most studies that employ the test-negative design.

Faksova et al. (January 2026) reported in your journal results from a large cohort study of the flu vaccine in 2024–2025 in elderly residents (age≥65) of three Nordic countries. The estimated VE against flu-related death was 63%, which corresponds to a risk ratio (RR) of 0.37. How robust is the result? What does sensitivity analysis show?

The authors relied on a matched design to avoid confounding bias, a major threat in observational research. Unvaccinated members of the cohort were matched to the vaccinated (one-to-one matching) on several variables, including key comorbidities.

Sweden was not included in the mortality analysis (small numbers), and the mortality graphs were displayed by country (Denmark, Finland). I will examine the data from Denmark, a matched cohort of over one million people.

Graphs of cumulative mortality by vaccination status were displayed as of 14 days after a matched index date. For a vaccinated person, the index date was the vaccination date; for their unvaccinated counterpart, that matched date was just a random date on the calendar. I will return to this point later when we discuss their health status.

Keep reading

Learn lessons from covid: do not take the mRNA flu “vaccines”

The FDA’s approval of Moderna’s mFLUSIVA marks another major expansion of modified mRNA technology. Approved on 5 August for adults aged 50 and older in the United States, the product is intended for use during the 2026–2027 influenza season and is expected to appear on shelves in the coming weeks.

This deserves immediate attention. Despite all of the harms we witnessed during the covid-19 “vaccine” rollout, the same dangerous technological platform is now being introduced into routine seasonal influenza inoculation. The United States may be first, but applications are also being considered elsewhere, making this an international issue. Please warn everyone of the dangers and do not take these injections.

From Covid to Seasonal Influenza

The covid-19 injections represented a dramatic departure from traditional vaccine technology. Rather than introducing an antigen directly, the mRNA products deliver tens of trillions of copies of foreign genetic code inside PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, intended to cause the recipient’s own cells to manufacture foreign proteins.

Many of us raised concerns about this technology before the covid-19 injection rollout began. Those concerns included the distribution of infinitely penetrating lipid nanoparticles throughout the body, the hyper-persistence of the modified mRNA, the continued production of foreign proteins and the high risk of serious adverse effects.

The safety signals reported following the covid-19 “vaccine” rollout only intensified those concerns. Before the covid-19 injections, there were typically only a few hundred deaths reported each year following vaccination in the United States. This is not accounting for underreporting. After the modified mRNA covid-19 injections were rolled out, this rose to tens of thousands of reported deaths within months, with higher numbers in those initial months than for all other vaccines, for all other diseases, over the previous 30 years combined. Not to mention, data shows the covid injections have a negative efficacy; they increase the risk of covid infection. They produced only harm, no benefit.

Keep reading

FDA Approves 3 New COVID-19 Vaccines

The Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 27 approved COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, and Sanofi.

The new shots from Pfizer and Moderna use the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) platform and target the XFG strain, a subvariant of the JN.1 variant.

Regulators also cleared a COVID-19 vaccine shot from Sanofi that targets the XFG strain and does not use mRNA technology.

The approval is for people aged 65 and older, as well as people aged 12 to 64 who have one or more underlying conditions such as obesity that officials say puts them at higher risk of severe COVID-19.

Regulators have been approving updated COVID-19 vaccines for several years, in a bid to better match circulating strains. The previous versions of the vaccines were estimated to provide 58 percent protection against hospitalization, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The FDA did not announce the approvals in a press release, as it has done in the past.

The FDA and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been critical of mRNA vaccines against respiratory diseases, saying they don’t work well.

Manufacturers are going to run single-arm studies evaluating the shots in humans, according to FDA documents. The companies were going to be made to run placebo-controlled trials, but officials released them from that requirement “because of operational and feasibility challenges,” the documents said.

FDA officials in 2025 said that new placebo-controlled trials were imperative to determine how well the COVID-19 vaccines actually performed, given it has been years since such trials were conducted. Pfizer and Moderna committed to running placebo-controlled trials, as did Novavax, which has since licensed its COVID-19 vaccine to Sanofi.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Hands Bill Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Syndicate $600 Million

The U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last month revealed they “will immediately release all $600 million in Congressionally appropriated funds” for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Bill Gates’ international vaccine syndicate, according to a State Department press release.

In June 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had withdrawn American funding from Gavi, citing child deaths linked to the vaccines the organization dispenses worldwide.

But one year later, Secretary of ​State Marco Rubio promised that the United States would “re-engage” with Gavi, citing a purported Ebola outbreak as justification.

The new State Department press release emphasizes President Donald Trump gave the directive himself.

Per the release:

“Last year, President Trump directed Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to engage directly with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi), and secure meaningful reforms before the United States would consider future support. Those discussions resulted in significant commitments that strengthen vaccine safety, improve public health, and better align Gavi’s work with the principles of Gold Standard Science and transparency. Based on those commitments, the United States will immediately release all $600 million in Congressionally appropriated funds to Gavi for both FY25 and FY26.”

The agreement included “reducing reliance on mercury-containing vaccines, where suitable alternatives are available.”

The release didn’t specify which alternatives would be used nor cite any relevant safety studies.

But it did confirm vaccine manufacturers would benefit:

“Achieving these transitions will require manufacturers to expand production capacity, countries to adopt newer vaccine formulations, and Gavi’s governing Board to complete the necessary approvals. The United States recognizes these implementation challenges but welcomes Gavi’s commitment to work toward these goals through transparent governance and responsible stewardship.”

The Trump admin ultimately wants to “resume its place on the Gavi Board”:

“In addition, given the sizeable contribution the United States is making to improve access to vaccines, the United States expects to resume its place on the Gavi Board. In this role, the United States will continue to hold Gavi accountable for measurable progress toward these commitments. It will evaluate any future U.S. support based on demonstrated performance, accountability, and implementation of these reforms.”

Keep reading