I’ve long believed that public relations (propaganda) is one of the most powerful but invisible forces in our society. Again and again, I’ve watched professional PR firms create narratives that most of the country believes, regardless of how much it goes against their self-interests.
What’s most remarkable is that despite the exact same tactics being used repeatedly on the public, most people simply can’t see it. When you try to point out exactly how they’re being bamboozled by yet another PR campaign, they often can’t recognize it — instead insisting you’re paranoid or delusional.
That’s why one of my major goals in this publication has been to expose this industry. Once you understand their playbook — having “independent” experts push sculpted language that media outlets then repeat — it becomes very easy to spot, and saves you from falling into the traps most people do. The COVID-19 vaccines, for instance, were facilitated by the largest PR campaign of our lifetime.
One of the least appreciated consequences of this industry is that many of our cultural beliefs ultimately originate from PR campaigns.1 This explains why so many widely believed things are “wrong” — if a belief were actually true, it wouldn’t require a massive PR investment to instill in society. Due to PR’s power, the viewpoints it instills tend to crowd out other cultural beliefs.
In this article, we’ll take a deeper look at what’s behind one of those implanted beliefs: “vaccines don’t cause autism.”
The Frequency of Vaccine Injuries
When vaccinated and unvaccinated children are compared, chronic illnesses are 3 to 7X as common in the vaccinated individuals. Because of this, there is a longstanding embargo on ever conducting this type of research (allowing the status quo to remain that “no evidence exists” between the vaccine and the injury).
Recently, Senator Ron Johnson revealed that a robust study comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated had been conducted at a premier medical institution in 2020, but due to the results it showed, despite previously committing to publishing the paper, its authors chose not to, due to how much it violated the medical orthodoxy.
It’s important to note that beyond these results being earth-shattering, they are also entirely in line with every other long-term comparative study that has ever been done on vaccines — all of which I synopsized here (along with the characteristic signs that allow one to identify the frightfully frequent vaccine-injured children).
Erasing Encephalitis
[…]
One of the most widely recognized side effects of vaccination is neurological damage (particularly to the cranial nerves and brain). Prior to the censorship which took over our medical journals, reports of vaccine brain and nerve injuries (e.g., encephalitis) were extensively reported throughout the medical literature — including many identical to what are seen in modern-day autism.
Furthermore, it used to be widely recognized that vaccines could make you “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.” Consider for example, the language at this 1983 debate between doctors which took place on the Donahue Show (which at the time was the largest talk show in America) — that to my knowledge was the last time a publicized debate on vaccines was allowed to happen:
Given the taboo around “retarded” that exists now, it is quite noteworthy how nonchalantly it was used there. This shift resulted from disability groups in the late 1990s and early 2000’s campaigning against “retarded,” an extensive 2008 campaign (ending the “r-word”)3 and in 2010, Obama signing a law which effectively outlawed the term by removing “mentally retarded” from all federal laws and statutes and replacing it with “intellectual disability” (something which has never been done with any other word).4
As such, the vaccine brain injuries, which made children mentally retarded were re-labeled as “autism,” while in tandem, autism was given an extremely broad and vague definition that swept over all the concurrently occurring neurological injuries.
Because of this, the stark and unmistakable impression of a severe vaccine brain injury (e.g., “you know Sue’s son became severely retarded after their 2 month vaccines”) was displaced with a much more amorphous term that was easy to write off because it was too complex and vague to think about — hence providing easy mental escapes from this uncomfortable topic, thereby making it easy to write off and close one’s mind to.
Mild Autism
Anytime something injures human beings (unless it’s highly lethal), less severe reactions will be much more common than severe injuries (e.g., far more were disabled than killed by the COVID vaccines5).
As such, individuals with minor neurological injuries from vaccination have changes that lightly overlap with those seen in severe injuries.
Because of this, “autism exists on a spectrum” with many of its characteristic changes being seen to lesser extents in individuals who are not severely disabled (e.g., Elon Musk has characteristic autistic traits and has admitted as such6).
Yet, rather than recognizing that the rise in autistic-like traits signals something is profoundly changing in the population — and that a smaller group may be developing severe brain damage and more extreme versions of these traits — the prevailing narrative claims the autism surge is simply due to people who were otherwise basically normal (aside from a few “autistic quirks”) being re-diagnosed as autistic.
As such, the autism epidemic is dismissed as an illusion, attributed to “selective data interpretation by anti-vaxxers” — a convenient explanation that allows many to avoid grappling with an uncomfortable possibility.
Likewise, whenever “autism” is equated to brain damage, a large chorus of people can be relied upon to denounce them by saying their (highly functional) autistic child is not brain damaged, thereby silencing and ending the actual debate (e.g., Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly done this to RFK7).
Similarly, once the societal conception of vaccine brain injuries was shifted from “mentally retarded” or “autism,” a push began to normalize autism (e.g., with terms like neurodiversity), thereby making it even more taboo to criticize the complications of this illness.
Fortunately, independent voices are beginning to sound the alarm over this issue. Gavin de Becker (a longtime advocate for vaccine safety), in an excellent newly released book points out that:
1. There is no clear definition for autism or a definitive way to diagnose much of it.
2. The same people who whitewashed the link between autism and vaccines by claiming there is “no evidence” also did the same for many other controversies, such as:
The book has many poignant quotes like this one:
“Promoting their work on vaccine safety, an IOM spokesperson said, ‘We looked very hard and found very little evidence of serious adverse harms from vaccines. The message I would want parents to have is one of reassurance.’
Since that’s the same ‘very little evidence’ the Government found with Agent Orange, burn pits, the anthrax vaccine, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, breast implants, and Gulf War Syndrome, I’m not sure how reassuring it ought to be to parents.“
[…]
Autism Data
Given all of this, there are two critical, but almost never discussed data points to consider. First, one of the primary studies cited to support the argument that the rise in autism actually is due to diagnostic reclassification is a 2009 study from California9 (conducted when the word retarded was being banned). Rather than show minor traits were being relabeled as autism, it showed 26.4% of children who had previously been diagnosed as “mentally retarded” became “autistic” (as did another commonly cited study10).
Second, while the general public has been conditioned to believe in the amorphous autism label, since this is untenable for those actually working with severely disabled children (vs. those on the spectrum), within the autism field, the two are differentiated by the terms “profound autism” and the far less severe “non-profound” autism. CDC data11 in turn, shows that roughly 26.7% of autistic children have “profound autism,” and that it is continually increasing (although at a much slower rate than non-profound autism):
However, since clarifying what autism is defeats the purpose of the label (having it be an ambiguous term that ultimately sweeps everything under the rug), this distinction is rarely if ever mentioned, and folks outside the autism community are seldom even aware of the term “profound autism” — they simply know “vaccines do not cause autism.”
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act had a large number of supporters in Congress due to a recent public recognition (made possible by the mainstream media of that era not habitually censoring pharmaceutical injury stories) that the original DPT vaccine frequently caused brain damage and severe disability.
Because of that, the act was created with the intention of fixing many of the major safety issues with vaccines and providing for injured parents to have an easier time obtaining compensation (by having the government rather than vaccine manufacturers pay for injuries), with the industry, in turn, agreeing to the act as they needed a way to be shielded from injury lawsuits that were bringing them to bankruptcy.
However, while well-intended (e.g., it put into place many critical provisions we rely upon now, like VAERS), give or take, every key provision in the act was implemented at the H.H.S. Secretary’s discretion. As such, once it passed, most of the things it was intended to do never happened and the overall situation instead became much worse as vaccine manufacturers no longer had any legal liability for making injurious products, hence allowing a flood of them to enter the market.
[…]
As the act was structured:
• If someone was afflicted with a condition that was agreed to be linked to vaccination shortly after vaccination, the Federal government was responsible for paying compensation to them, and to do so through a “vaccine court” designed to be much easier to handle than the hostile court system parents of DPT-injured children had navigated.
[…]
• In the original act, after intense negotiation, a series of vaccine-linked injuries were put into it (forming the initial vaccine injury table), along with a stipulation requiring continuous research to identify other complications that could be linked to vaccination.
Since much of that was at the H.H.S. Secretary’s discretion, there was an incentive to never allow future research which could unveil additional injuries requiring compensation. As such, despite twelve new vaccines being added to the schedule and decades of science since 1986, virtually no additional neurological injuries have been added to the table.13
Likewise, at the time the original act was written, brain damage (encephalopathy) was a widely recognized complication of vaccination.14 Hence, this was one of the few neurological conditions for which it stipulated that coverage was required.
[…]
As such, replacing encephalopathy with “autism” (which vaccines “do not cause”) made it possible to exempt the federal government from the massive liability it faced for these ever-increasing vaccine brain injuries.
[…]
Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/10/03/why-vaccine-brain-injuries-became-autism.aspx
The Most Revolutionary Act 