I 100% get what you are saying. I feel the exact same way the no plane WTC theories on 9/11. I also feel that way about Judy Wood's work with her 'directed energy weapons'. I think they are disinfo deliberately designed to nuke the entire movement. Unfortunately many here buy into such theories.
Vaxxstar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbDPkCCbIUc&t=0s
is one of my favorites :)
I posted the ACTUAL data, and ACTUAL emails from the study author who I believe went onto to work for GlaxoSmithKline lol. Who do you want a quote from? God?
Here is an article about it if you are really interested
When he crunched the numbers, Verstraeten found large statistically significant correlations between high doses of mercury and outcomes like autism, ADHD, tics, and speech disorders. He redid the numbers the next month and found an even higher correlation for autism. In fact, autism was more than 11 times as common in the high early exposure group than the non-exposure group.
Are you retarded? Serious question. The data and all the internal communications about the study were leaked. It showed a) the data showed vaccines caused autism. b) They knew this and couldn't make the link go away.
They sat on and massaged the data for YEARS before releasing it which in itself is highly unusual. What they eventually published was a study comparing kids that got shots, to kids that got shots, and guess what? There was no difference. That is a scientific disgrace.
The data showed it cause autism. The published study did not because they they compared kids that had shots to kids that had shots, and found no difference. Read the emails and the links regarding the study, it was all leaked.
Disinfo? lol this was the raw data and it showed the more mercury and aluminum you inject the more likely you are to get autism. They were strongly correlated. If you dig further (you won't because your mind is tighter than a ducks anus) the emails from the author were leaked in which he complained the link wouldn't go away. Well they did make it go away eventually, what they did was the equivalent of comparing kids that smoked 49 cigarettes a day, to kids that smoked 50, finding no difference and then declaring that cigarettes don't cause cancer. That is essentially what they eventually published. I believe the final data was published in 2004 in the journal of pediatrics.
Sure? The CDC's own data said it did: https://imgur.com/a/SbD3U
This one is for you (REDPILLING ME SOFTLY) https://www.bitchute.com/video/VcaFhjl0CTDY/