Why can't we talk about the evidence that vaccines cause autism? (Steve Kirsch)

 https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/why-every-scientist-should-agree

Let's take the highest quality studies on both sides and critically examine them and see which hypothesis is more likely to fit all the high quality data. Why won't the other side engage in a dialog?

STEVE KIRSCH JUL 2, 2023

Executive summary

It’s baffling to me that most scientists, when put to the task of looking at the evidence on both sides of the autism debate, cannot figure out which side is telling the truth.

This is not rocket science.

You simply take the strongest data from both sides and you examine it carefully in order to determine whether it is all consistent with hypothesis A or B (B in our case is “not A”).

You then declare which is more likely.

If new data emerges later causing the balance of data to flip, you flip the call at that point.

Only if the data is exactly even could you say “we are split.”

That is how science works.

Today, the only possible way anyone can say that “vaccines don’t cause autism” is if they completely ignore the data showing it does.

You cannot say, “I don’t believe the opposing data is correct.” You have to say why.

You cannot say, “I ignored the opposing data.” You have to say why.

They are ignoring the opposing data and refusing to say why.

That is not how science works.

Their arguments

There’s a ton of data on our side showing vaccines cause autism. I’ve summarized it here.

The highest profile data on their side is the Madsen study (and its offshoots), the DeStefano study, and the Verstraeten study. I’ve addressed all of these studies in my previous article.

If anyone disagrees, I’d love to have a live video discussion with a qualified scientist or group of scientists, but nobody wants to talk about it. Here’s how they can request a discussion.

And if their arguments are so strong that vaccines don’t cause autism, why won’t anyone bet against me? People even claim this is a fact! Yet they won’t risk any money betting me. Hmmmm….
Could it be that we lack quality studies and can’t determine the answer yet?

I think the studies are all good enough that we can make a call today. After all, the current medical consensus on this issue is that it is “settled science,” not that we need more studies!

Additionally, it is very troubling to me that the authorities are putting “roadblocks” to ensure that quality studies designed to elicit the truth are being derailed.

Is this how science works?

Summary

Do vaccines cause autism?

This is a binary question. You answer it by lining up the data against the two options and seeing which option can explain ALL the highest quality data. No exceptions.

All the data I’m aware of lines up consistently on the side of vaccines causing autism. I have yet to run into a data point that was not consistent with this that I can’t explain (with evidence).

In fact, the strongest evidence that I am right is that the strongest evidence that the opposition uses to support their argument is very weak (study design designed to obscure a signal and no effort on the part of the researchers to learn the truth or correct their study and a refusal to supply the underlying data to other researchers).

I am not aware of anyone who has demonstrated that the data listed in my “how do you explain this evidence” autism article is either consistent with their hypothesis or invalid. They won’t talk about it.

Yet they either insist that “we need high quality studies” to answer the question or they claim that the issue is “settled science” or in the case of Martin Kulldorff, that I made a disrespectful comment in the past so it is fine to ignore all my evidence.

We have plenty of data to decide this issue now. That is not the problem. We don’t need more data.

And it is not settled science. Plenty of top scientists reject the notion that “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

The only way a true scientist can argue that “we don’t know” is if the data is split, where half the credible data supports hypothesis A, and half supports B, and the scientist is unable to resolve the conflict.

Is there such a scientist arguing this? If they want to resolve the ambiguity, why won’t they talk to me or any of my colleagues on this issue?

In general, it’s a real shame that scientists who support the “scientific consensus” are so unwilling to engage in a scientific discussion with their peers on the other side to publicly discuss the issue or join in a collaboration to design a joint experiment to settle the issue (where none of the people I invited responded).

Nobody on their side really wants to talk about this issue.

And that, my friends, tells you everything you need to know.