Social Items

TPQ
Matt Bowen ✍ I’ve been an avid reader of The Quill for quite some time now. 

I’ve never commented before and I had previously intended to pen some articles on various topics to submit for consideration of publication on The Quill, however, my lack of writing experience along with time constraints has meant that thus far, the articles I intended to write have not yet come to fruition. Except this one.

After reading the article submitted by John Coulter regarding Autism and the MMR Vaccine I was inspired to immediately begin to pen this response. Autism and the history of Autism is a topic I’ve spent many years researching, it’s something I can talk about at length. (1)

In John’s article he touched upon how the mere mention of vaccines, in particular the MMR vaccine and Autism in the same sentence is considered taboo, often met with ridicule, with a list of derogatory labels applied to anyone who may suggest a link between the two. It’s true, it happens, but, now imagine the reaction to those that might suggest that Autism doesn’t even exist at all. That would be quite the shock wouldn’t it. Not just a shock, it's something to some that is so offensive, so ridiculous and inconceivable that one would be very lucky for anybody to even hear the argument out.

I have friends and family that have received an Autism diagnosis. I also have experience working with children that have an Autism diagnosis, all of varying severity on the spectrum. And at various stages throughout my life, I have even been encouraged to seek a diagnosis of Autism for myself. I’m sure many readers will know of someone, without too many degrees of separation, that have a diagnosis for Autism. John in his article also detailed his own experience with a family member diagnosed Autistic. So how could or should such a ludicrous suggestion that it doesn’t exist be given any credence whatsoever?

This article would be far too long to include the entire history of Autism. Although it is important we take a brief look at certain parts of it.

The actual word “Autism” according to Wikipedia is said to have first been introduced by Eugen Bleuler in 1911. At this stage it was still linked to schizophrenia, which itself at the time was a condition that was splintered off of dementia. It should be noted that the medical names given at this time in history were different to how the exact same terms are applied today. I should also mention that although the term Autism is said to have been coined at this time, there had been publications of various observations and descriptions of conditions with similar criteria dating back as early as the 1700's.

Between 1911 and the 1940's other people of note who contributed to research surrounding Autism were Russian Psychiatrist Grunya Sukhareva, who was said to be the first person to pathologize Autism, and Austrian physicians Leo Kanner, and Hans Asperger, the latter’s name would later go on to be used for Aspergers Syndrome although Hans did not coin the term himself. In 1943, Kanner diagnosed Donald Triplett. Known as "Case One", Triplett is said to be the first person to receive a diagnosis of Autism, some thirty years after the term was said to have first been coined.

I can’t include a full write-up of every single person involved in the research and evolution of Autism -  you can certainly look into them in your own time. I would very much encourage anyone interested to do so, as you will find that many of the people involved have dubious backgrounds to say the least. You might, as I have found, begin to see rather interesting links appear every time any revision is made to the definition of Autism as well as other mental and psychological disorders as the years progress. It’s very important to consider the dates in relation to what daily life would have been like, how the political landscape was, what other major events were happening in the world at these times, what new substances, drugs, medicines, pharmacological additions were being made, how medical practices and research was conducted, as we all should well know that many medical practices and human research conducted in the past is today considered archaic and highly unethical and very rightly so. Luckily we have moved on from the archaic as science has progressed, and thank goodness in today’s eternally moral population unethical human experimentation is consigned to the past, or is it?
 
Well that's a topic that can have a much more in-depth discussion another time. Anyone interested in a refresher course on unethical human experimentation and just how cruel one human being can be to another, can find a list here and I'm sure there are many more examples that are not on that list.(2)

The diagnosis of Autism continued to evolve over the years to what is now called the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As John pointed out in his article, there has been a rather large increase lately in people being given an Autism diagnosis, that only a decade or so in the past would not have received one. Reasons given for this by so called professionals, or as I like to say prompted by “The Narrator”, is because many conditions that received an alternate terminology have been grouped together to form this larger spectrum that is ASD, which is fair enough I suppose. But also claims are made that they have learnt so much more about the condition, they are just so much better at recognising it and making interventions. This is quite the point of contention.

Presently ASD can be broadly split into two camps. The far less severe camp, where many people, buoyed on by quite a lot of "celebrity" involvement and endorsement, claim that they are just Neuro-Divergent, they say Autism is "my gift", "it's my superpower". They advocate against cures or treatments for Autism, as they believe this superpower of theirs does not need a cure, nor should it even be considered a disorder. I myself am not exactly sure whether it could, or should be described as a power, let alone a superpower. Nor do I know how this power manifests or is used to any effect by the claimant. Should you ever push the claimant to provide a precise answer with any sensible meaning to this, you will quite swiftly be in receipt of your own label, a derogatory one of course, and you’ll find the conversation breaks down rather rapidly. Certainly with current metrics we use today to measure ability, there doesn’t seem to be an abundance of these superpowered individuals topping the charts. That could simply be down to outdated metrics, or perhaps they just need to be given more time and opportunity to come to the forefront.

Then there is the camp where the condition is much more severe, and they view the first camp with utter disdain, relaying how their child is suffering on a daily basis, and they themselves are suffering on a daily basis struggling to cope with the care of the child, heartbroken at witnessing how their child suffers. They say it's not a gift or a superpower, and if they had to cut off their own legs in order for a cure to be found for their loved one suffering, they'd do so in a heartbeat. I can fully empathize with that. Should a new wonder cure ever be proclaimed any time soon, caution should be advised, as anguish is typically one of the heartstrings plucked to gently nudge, or coerce those towards experimental treatment. As hard as it may be, one should try and remove the emotion from any decision making and ask yourself, do you really want to be the person first in line?

Currently there is no cure.

Wikipedia cites both the NHS and Autism.org.uk stating that "curing or otherwise treating Autism may not be an appropriate goal". Tell that to the members of Camp Two.
 
Again taken directly from Wikipedia, "Autistic people may be prescribed medication to manage specific co-occurring conditions or behaviours" not actually prescribed for Autism itself. "More than half of Autistic children in the United States are prescribed psychoactive drugs or anticonvulsants. Commonly used drug classes include antidepressants, stimulants, and antipsychotics".

This brings me to the first substantial exhibit.

Here a debate is had, titled "Psychiatrists and the Pharma Industry are to Blame for the Current ‘Epidemic’ of Mental Disorders".(3)
 
In this debate you will see the panel for the motion, which includes Psychoanalyst Darian Leader, in my opinion, give quite compelling evidence to strongly suggest that indeed Psychiatrists, at least some of them, and the Pharma industry may very well have a lot to answer for. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately I believe that the audience who were voting on the motion may have been a tad biased, and quite possibly swayed by their dislike of Mr Will Self, who also in my opinion, could perhaps have formulated his arguments a little better. He was quite clearly emotional - that much is evident. Also in this debate please note the mentions of the DSM.

Today, generally the criteria to satisfy a diagnosis of Autism is governed by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The ICD came first in 1893, first under the original name of the International Classification of Causes of Death before being changed in revision number six in 1948 to it's current name when the World Health Organisation assumed responsibility for it's publication. The DSM began in 1952 evolving from psychiatric hospital statistics, as well as from a United States Army manual. It's rather interesting that the DSM would evolve from a military manual and again the dates are important. Both the ICD and the DSM are updated regularly after what used to be a cycle of roughly 5-10 years, to more frequent revisions happening in more modern times. The ICD is broader in scope than the DSM and there are some other differences related specifically to Autism, but these differences are quite negligible and mostly arbitrary, with both manuals tending to mirror each other closely. If one were to look here at the Wikipedia page and follow the citations, it goes into detail specifically about the many criticisms that the DSM has received.(4)

Cue the next exhibit here. (5) You will see Psychotherapist Dr James Davies give a very in depth analysis on the history of the DSM. He even managed to speak personally with some of the major people responsible for forming some it’s editions, whilst also touching on the involvement of the Pharma Industry. I consider it one of the best and most important presentations for anyone with any interest in medical studies, in particular with relation to mental health and diagnostics, seeing as both the DSM and ICD are the backbone of criteria for main stream diagnostics. Such a thorough and detailed lecture highlights very serious problems with Psychiatry, Psychology and the Pharmacologic Industry, to the point that one really ought at the very least, to start raising eyebrows at what The Narrator has many people believing. One ought to question their own beliefs on the subjects, and ask yourself, what do you really actually know?

In this exhibit here  for The British Psychological Society, the Psychiatrist, Psychotherapist and Author Professor Sami Timimi presents his own compelling argument, stating that Autism is a social construct and does not even exist at all.(6) He questions the benefits of assigning labels and ponders whether these labels could be adverse instead. Timimi outlines that symptoms of Autism need not be pathologized, and the way in which they are pathologized does not happen with any other type of physical condition, disease, illness or abnormality, resulting in a contradiction to integral and robust scientific method. He presents that currently there is no possible way to be able to positively confirm the validity of a diagnosis, there are no blood tests, there are no genetic markers, no clear indications from neural imaging, there is absolutely no empirical or scientific evidence for Autism’s existence. Timimi points out that Autism is descriptive rather than explanatory, thus only a fallacy by way of circular reasoning remains. Here he presents the same argument expanded with additional history and context for the Third Systemic Autism Conference.(7)

So what does that mean for anybody that has an Autism diagnosis?

I would suggest that what these Doctors and Professors are alluding to, is that if we take the overly simplistic division of the two camps mentioned earlier. Those in Camp One are so ambiguous in their presentation that they can almost be completely dismissed as not having anything wrong with them at all, outside of what can easily be described as just a difference in personality, with any presenting symptoms to suggest more serious problems that might be reported or otherwise observed being a result of Iatrogenesis, brought on by different factors including but not limited to medications, and exasperated by receiving a label, or diagnosis as it's currently called. They are positing that receiving these labels whilst anecdotally bringing comfort and relief to some, can more often that not cause more harm than good. It could even be considered as a form of Munchausen syndrome, by self or by proxy.
Receiving some sort of diagnosis or "label" has become fashionable, marketable and thus profitable, helped along rapidly by celebrity endorsement especially in the USA, but now spreading at pace to the rest of the world, where some people seem very eager to receive their own label and using this label as some sort of "get out of jail free card" to excuse what would otherwise be considered inexcusable societal behaviour. Certainly in these cases, labels such as grandiose, narcissist, even sociopath could just as easily fit the bill. Interestingly enough, another controversy over the DSM erupted when the committee on personality disorders for the 5th Edition recommended the removal of Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the manual.

However, by contrast, labels related to neuro-divergence are not allowed to be challenged nor allowed to receive any doubts or criticism even from any other medical experts, but rather the person presenting it is supposed to be confirmed, accommodated, congratulated, and heralded as a role-model that's helping and inspiring all those others out there that are “different” or struggling too. Proudly declaring, often with the case of celebrities and influencers very publicly, that they are “neuro-divergent”, meaning their neurological function is not typical, not normal, and normal is boring, it’s ordinary, meaning they are extraordinary, they are gifted, they have a superpower, and that’s something to desire, that’s something to boast about. 

However, in reality, there is no neurological baseline, even with the closest possible genetic similarities, that being a set of twins. In the wider population, one can talk about a neurological average, but averages are a mathematical construct, often not existing in reality. If there is no baseline, it means we are all different, which of course is very true. We are all different. So, if we are all different, does this mean we are all neuro-divergent? If we are all divergent, then the definition itself loses it’s entire meaning. Divergent from what exactly if a baseline does not exist? Certainly we are all neurologically different, and this difference can indeed be described as a spectrum, but for what purpose and to what end? It would mean that the entire population is on “The Spectrum”, in which case assigning a label to every individual would only add to the ever increasing confusion on the topic. There was, and is, no need to rebrand the old-fashioned label we used to have for explaining that everyone is different, which was the very plain and boring label of “normality”. Being different is normal, no two people are the same, similar maybe, but never the same.

For those in Camp Two, there is no question that there is some severe underlying condition or disorder as the symptoms presented are very apparent. The medical profession could make improvements by reducing the spectrum significantly to only include the more severe cases, or perhaps by giving these more severe cases a new name. Whilst initially this could possibly be confusing, it could actually prove to be beneficial too, as Autism has become diluted to the point that it’s detracting from people that genuinely suffer. The label "Autism" from it's conception to present day throughout any of its iterations in history is insufficient as a diagnosis, as again it offers nothing more than a label due to the fact that there are no existing tests which can confirm the presence of "Autism". Nor does it offer any solution, as there is no effective medication or cure to be had. Rather than receiving a diagnosis of Autism and doctors saying, "well sorry, here's some pills that we know won't change anything, and that's it from us, nothing more we can do, no more investigation necessary", I would suggest investigation is indeed necessary, as the possibility remains that the symptoms are caused by another underlying condition, one that could be tested for, one in which a cure might be found, one in which symptoms mirror those that we currently associate with Autism and perhaps have been misdiagnosed as such.

The criteria has indeed widened to include many more individuals, but the criteria being far too wide is something that many professionals in the field have been vocal about for some time. But like John has found with mentioning MMR vaccine and Autism in the same breath, should you question The Narrator about anything, you will find yourself possibly losing your job, being derogatorily labelled, ridiculed, demonised, de-platformed, funding removed or flat out ignored, which results in a reluctance from some to speak their mind or present their case. This is occurring with increasing frequency, and not just on the subject of mental health, but also throughout all other areas of Science.

This idea that you just follow the science sounds good in theory, but when the actual scientists are not doing that themselves, then what is someone with less scientific acumen left to believe? Complaints have been raised about this multiple times by multiple people for decades, by many quite prominent in their field, with subjects such as Physics, History, Archaeology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Pharmacology, Neurology, Epidemiology and many more.

The Grievance Study Affair, taken from the Wikipedia page here.(8)

Related to a group of Authors that in 2017-2018 worked together to purposefully submit bogus papers relating to certain topics that are currently the flavour of choice, to “highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields”. Four of the papers were published, others were considered. I won’t even mention what the titles of these papers are, you can view them yourself. Interestingly, some of the criticism levelled at the hoax included; From Daniel Engber, “we know from long experience that expert peer review offers close to no protection against outright data fraud", and from Evolutionary Biologist Carl T. Bergstrom, “peer review is not designed to remove fraud or even absurd ideas”. To me that sounds more like affirmation of the groups initial analysis rather than criticism. Indeed peer review is another topic that is receiving more and more complaints of late, and perhaps rightly so.

As another example of problems in Science, Here is Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder detailing how she lost her affiliation with Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy due to her speaking freely on certain topics that The Narrator doesn't currently agree with.(9) Sabine has spoken out many times about the issues regarding "The Science" including fake papers and scams (10 )that are occurring in order to artificially increase citations and here she mentions how this problem is spreading.(11)

She along with other scientists have been smeared for speaking out about the incidences of gatekeeping, bullying, attempts at de-platforming and otherwise demonising anyone that doesn’t toe the narrative line, regardless of whether their science is actually sound. Lets not forget all the prominent scientists involved with the Great Barrington Declaration. Doesn’t it seem absurd that anybody who claims to be so certain in their own scientific beliefs or otherwise, would find it necessary to try and completely shut down and dismiss any alternative discourse or evidence to the contrary? Science is supposed to consider evidence, and make appropriate changes whenever new evidence suggests it should. Science is not supposed to censor, nor is it supposed to be reflexively dismissive.

Does the MMR vaccine have any causal links with Autism?

I don't know. But the point is, neither do majority of the people that instantly dismiss a link between the two. If such a thing as Autism actually exists, and anyone has any credible evidence or research to show a link between MMR vaccines and Autism, I believe it should be considered and held up to the correct honest scientific scrutiny rather than being dismissed summarily. The scientific community are much harder to sway from certain ideas than many people realise. Even when evidence is presented, the task will increase with exponential difficulty when there is no evidence at all. It can happen in reality that something is true or exists without there being any available proof. The trouble here is when one tries to convince another of what is true without that proof or evidence, at the very least you would need to have a structurally sound theory as a solid foundation to build upon. Perhaps if John writes another article on the MMR vaccine he can include citations of any research he has come across. As it's his belief, I'll let him make the argument.

I will agree with John in that I believe one should always have the freedom of choice to decide whether they wish to refuse vaccinations or other treatments. As history has shown, for that matter very recent history, it’s not too inconceivable that in the very near future, the choice a person has of receiving or refusing any medical intervention will be removed entirely from them. As recently as year 2020, some quite vocally and actively called for forced vaccinations. Although as far as I’m aware, no physical force was used in the “western world”, that’s not to say it wasn’t under consideration. There were other methods aside from physical force that were used, involving a highly aggressive campaign adopting alternate forms of manipulation, which some say not only went against the principal of informed consent, but shattered the boundaries. Calls for vaccine passports were made, and these passports are still very much on the agenda. This has the real possibility to widen in scope. As we can see with Autism how the criteria increased to include ever more individuals, what’s not to say that a central authority some day might decide that any citizen they choose, in particular those that don’t comply with the central authority, are not actually rebellious by conscious free thought alone, but rather they have an illness, a condition, one that requires intervention, a cure, a cure that the central authority can readily supply freely to all, and will do so by any means necessary. How many people in the last 41 years are now starting to believe 2+2=5? Are we in, or entering into, a time where perhaps we’ll see regular scheduled flights over the cuckoo’s nest, and as a result be faced with ever increasing medical authoritarianism? Signs are there. And on that note, for anyone interested in a segway that still holds some relevance to topics discussed in this article, have a look at Ken Kesey, a man with a fascinating history, who believed that society often pushes out those who do not fit the conventional ideas of how society expects them to act or behave.(12) These unconventionals were then labelled insane and committed to Psychiatric units. As I mentioned earlier, the dates are important.

Does Autism actually exist?

Quite possibly, but as I have hopefully shown in this article, there are also compelling arguments suggesting it’s very possible that it does not, the idea was not as ridiculous as it may have first seemed. Regardless of what opinions I may or may not hold, the truth is, I don’t know. I also think that “I don’t know” can often be a better place to start than “I believe”.

What I do know, is that Science, and Academia in general are proven to have serious problems. From paper mills producing scam papers to outright organised fraud. Experiments, studies, tests and research are not always adhering to the robust scientific method they should, with results being manipulated to purposefully favour any given hypothesis, cherry picking data, and disregarding results that don’t fit the desired conclusion. Peer review is not the sufficient safeguard that we’re led to believe. Incidences of gatekeeping, bullying, defamation, character assassination, and smear campaigns are rife. Regarding the Pharma industry, it seems that the snake-oil salesmen of old didn't disappear, they rebranded and went from strength to strength dominating an industry that turns over staggering amounts of yearly profits to the tune of hundred of billions, prioritising these profits over all else. Building up a positive reputation by acquiring the rights and patents of some successful products, in doing so they managed to repeatedly slip in harmful wares into their stock, often going undiscovered for dangerously long periods of time. When they are caught out, the disproportionally low fines they receive have no effect on the deep pockets of their shareholders, the mud doesn’t stick, their reputation goes untarnished and they’re able to repeat without so much as a wash and a rinse. I encourage people not to dismiss out of hand any theory that contradicts the narrative, nor to resort to immediate insult towards those presenting such theories. Equating the narrative to unquestionable truth is a dangerous precedent to set, it’s just not science. In any case, the insults are more likely to result in those doubling down on their beliefs instead of seeking to know, they become more susceptible to unfounded fringe elements and unable to separate themselves from observation bias and confirmation bias, especially those that aren’t as scientifically astute. Rather it’s much better to hear out the arguments on both sides and do your own thorough research to the best of your ability. Making a steelman argument for the contrasting views is a good place to start.

The very real possibility remains that perhaps soon in the near future, your ability to rely on the internet as a resource for research could rapidly decline. Should you type a vague question regarding the topics discussed here into the search engine of your choice, or if you were to ask an AI search assistant of your choice as to whether Autism exists, you will most likely only find an answer that fits the current narrative, and other view points will be dismissed as either pseudoscience, or claimed that no such contradictory view points are available. The algorithms are dominating more and more of our lives, claiming to show you more of what you want to see, but in reality, they are showing you more of what someone else wants you to see. Restrictions on access to the internet are coming into force and there are even strong claims and evidence to suggest that certain articles are actively being edited or removed from the internet completely. With the “facts” being checked, who is checking the fact-checkers?

As an extra little titbit back to the topic of Autism. Many people still associate Autism with the film Rain Man, which starred Dustin Hoffman playing the "Autistic Savant" character named Raymond Babbitt. The character was said to be inspired by Kim Peek who, like Case One Donald Triplett, was a real life Savant. Although Peek had received a diagnosis for Autism, this was later believed to be incorrect, and an alternative diagnosis of FG Syndrome was posited. Savants are capable of such incredible feats that they could be said to almost rival a computer even by today's standards. Savant Syndrome is not synonymous with Autism but rather a separate condition that can co-exist. It is estimated that between 0.5% and 10% of those with Autism have some form of savant abilities. As far as the 5th edition of the DSM, Savant syndrome in not recognised as a mental disorder. Due to the extraordinary capabilities of savants it comes as no surprise to hear, that some people are actively seeking to acquire such talents. Cue more human experimentation.

It is said that; “Savant syndrome has been artificially replicated using low-frequency trans-cranial magnetic stimulation to temporarily disable this area of the brain” (This area being the temporal lobe). In an article here on the National Library for Biotechnology Information, an argument is put forward that "savant skills are latent in us all", and seeks "to explore the possibility of artificially inducing such skills in healthy, normal individuals".(13)

Isn't that fascinating? Manipulating the brain with magnets can induce Savant abilities, on "healthy normal individuals", whatever healthy and normal is these days, yes very fascinating indeed. But that's not all magnets can do. According to this study here listed on the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),(14) and this abstract snippet from Cambridge University, using magnets on the brain can even switch off empathy in individuals.(15) One wonders whether these experiments would pique the interest of the military or intelligence agencies? I’m not sure, perhaps not. It’s not like they’ve ever shown any interest or had any involvement in the past regarding a desire to bolster their ranks with individuals possessing increased ability coupled with a lack of empathy. Did I mention Ken Kesey already? He really did have a fascinating history.

Speaking of empathy, and continuing the theme of Autism for that matter, did you know that the IDF, yes that IDF, have a “program designed to train young Autistic adults who want to volunteer for service in the IDF”? And that they are “taught professions for which they have a comparative advantage”?

Ro’im Rachok was founded in 2013 by two Mossad veterans who realized that certain individuals on the Autism spectrum could be unusually skilled at spending long hours analysing aerial reconnaissance photographs and picking out tiny details. In addition to its military benefits, there are social benefits to the program. 

Great stuff, and obviously nothing nefarious here, as there never is when military programs are involved with considerably vulnerable individuals. I mean, it sounds very noble, and a great way to help these individuals gain the support and skills they need to succeed in life where otherwise they might have been excluded. There is absolutely zero evidence that I have came across to suggest, that individuals identified under current criteria as having Autism, have ever been inducted into the military and experimented on with magnets to the brain, with the intention to research and attempt to artificially induce Savant Syndrome, inadvertently using the same magnetic technology to remove empathy from decision making, no evidence at all, not yet anyway, but make of it what you will. Besides, according to this on the Science.org website, scientists have also discovered that they can use magnets to remove people’s belief in God and actually make them less biased towards immigrants.(16)
 
Yes well, all that messing about with magnets to the brain does seem rather confusing. Obviously the IDF and the powers that be in Israel certainly believe in God, they’re well known for their abundance of empathy and they sure love immigration.

Using magnets to remove empathy from human decision making, what will they think of next? I can only imagine what affect this might have on people who would already struggle to orienteer and navigate themselves using a moral compass, or on those that don’t even possess one.
From the simple discovery of the attraction of ferrous metals to each other, to sticking notes to the refrigerator, the electric motor, MRI scans, phone networks and signals, to now even removing empathy from an individual, our uses of electro-magnetism have certainly increased to produce many miraculous marvels of the modern age. But that’s a whole other spectrum.

In closing, the points I have discussed in this article have many threads to pull on. It is a rabbit hole as they say and the warren is huge. I would highly recommend you go down it. I have only rather briefly touched upon the topic of Autism, and although the links I have provided do contain hours worth of a combination of written and video information, there is so very much more to it, with each point really deserving it’s own dedicated article. I admit that how I have presented this is rather rough and unpolished, it was thrashed together in haste rather clumsily and I apologise in advance for my lack of writing experience. I hope with practice I can improve.

I have not written this with any intentions of offending anybody, nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything other than to highlight the relevance and importance of ethical rigorous scientific method, free speech and open debate, whilst also encouraging open-minded and respectful discourse. Whilst presenting factual information that some may perceive as being shaded with light conspiratorial overtones, at the very least I hope I have provided a little food for thought.

🔴The following are the sources and citations intended as hyperlinks throughout the article]

1. Time For Trump To Rekindle Debate On MMR And Autism




⏩Matt Bowen is a researcher and commentator?

Autism And The MMR Vaccine

Matt Bowen ✍ I’ve been an avid reader of The Quill for quite some time now. 

I’ve never commented before and I had previously intended to pen some articles on various topics to submit for consideration of publication on The Quill, however, my lack of writing experience along with time constraints has meant that thus far, the articles I intended to write have not yet come to fruition. Except this one.

After reading the article submitted by John Coulter regarding Autism and the MMR Vaccine I was inspired to immediately begin to pen this response. Autism and the history of Autism is a topic I’ve spent many years researching, it’s something I can talk about at length. (1)

In John’s article he touched upon how the mere mention of vaccines, in particular the MMR vaccine and Autism in the same sentence is considered taboo, often met with ridicule, with a list of derogatory labels applied to anyone who may suggest a link between the two. It’s true, it happens, but, now imagine the reaction to those that might suggest that Autism doesn’t even exist at all. That would be quite the shock wouldn’t it. Not just a shock, it's something to some that is so offensive, so ridiculous and inconceivable that one would be very lucky for anybody to even hear the argument out.

I have friends and family that have received an Autism diagnosis. I also have experience working with children that have an Autism diagnosis, all of varying severity on the spectrum. And at various stages throughout my life, I have even been encouraged to seek a diagnosis of Autism for myself. I’m sure many readers will know of someone, without too many degrees of separation, that have a diagnosis for Autism. John in his article also detailed his own experience with a family member diagnosed Autistic. So how could or should such a ludicrous suggestion that it doesn’t exist be given any credence whatsoever?

This article would be far too long to include the entire history of Autism. Although it is important we take a brief look at certain parts of it.

The actual word “Autism” according to Wikipedia is said to have first been introduced by Eugen Bleuler in 1911. At this stage it was still linked to schizophrenia, which itself at the time was a condition that was splintered off of dementia. It should be noted that the medical names given at this time in history were different to how the exact same terms are applied today. I should also mention that although the term Autism is said to have been coined at this time, there had been publications of various observations and descriptions of conditions with similar criteria dating back as early as the 1700's.

Between 1911 and the 1940's other people of note who contributed to research surrounding Autism were Russian Psychiatrist Grunya Sukhareva, who was said to be the first person to pathologize Autism, and Austrian physicians Leo Kanner, and Hans Asperger, the latter’s name would later go on to be used for Aspergers Syndrome although Hans did not coin the term himself. In 1943, Kanner diagnosed Donald Triplett. Known as "Case One", Triplett is said to be the first person to receive a diagnosis of Autism, some thirty years after the term was said to have first been coined.

I can’t include a full write-up of every single person involved in the research and evolution of Autism -  you can certainly look into them in your own time. I would very much encourage anyone interested to do so, as you will find that many of the people involved have dubious backgrounds to say the least. You might, as I have found, begin to see rather interesting links appear every time any revision is made to the definition of Autism as well as other mental and psychological disorders as the years progress. It’s very important to consider the dates in relation to what daily life would have been like, how the political landscape was, what other major events were happening in the world at these times, what new substances, drugs, medicines, pharmacological additions were being made, how medical practices and research was conducted, as we all should well know that many medical practices and human research conducted in the past is today considered archaic and highly unethical and very rightly so. Luckily we have moved on from the archaic as science has progressed, and thank goodness in today’s eternally moral population unethical human experimentation is consigned to the past, or is it?
 
Well that's a topic that can have a much more in-depth discussion another time. Anyone interested in a refresher course on unethical human experimentation and just how cruel one human being can be to another, can find a list here and I'm sure there are many more examples that are not on that list.(2)

The diagnosis of Autism continued to evolve over the years to what is now called the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As John pointed out in his article, there has been a rather large increase lately in people being given an Autism diagnosis, that only a decade or so in the past would not have received one. Reasons given for this by so called professionals, or as I like to say prompted by “The Narrator”, is because many conditions that received an alternate terminology have been grouped together to form this larger spectrum that is ASD, which is fair enough I suppose. But also claims are made that they have learnt so much more about the condition, they are just so much better at recognising it and making interventions. This is quite the point of contention.

Presently ASD can be broadly split into two camps. The far less severe camp, where many people, buoyed on by quite a lot of "celebrity" involvement and endorsement, claim that they are just Neuro-Divergent, they say Autism is "my gift", "it's my superpower". They advocate against cures or treatments for Autism, as they believe this superpower of theirs does not need a cure, nor should it even be considered a disorder. I myself am not exactly sure whether it could, or should be described as a power, let alone a superpower. Nor do I know how this power manifests or is used to any effect by the claimant. Should you ever push the claimant to provide a precise answer with any sensible meaning to this, you will quite swiftly be in receipt of your own label, a derogatory one of course, and you’ll find the conversation breaks down rather rapidly. Certainly with current metrics we use today to measure ability, there doesn’t seem to be an abundance of these superpowered individuals topping the charts. That could simply be down to outdated metrics, or perhaps they just need to be given more time and opportunity to come to the forefront.

Then there is the camp where the condition is much more severe, and they view the first camp with utter disdain, relaying how their child is suffering on a daily basis, and they themselves are suffering on a daily basis struggling to cope with the care of the child, heartbroken at witnessing how their child suffers. They say it's not a gift or a superpower, and if they had to cut off their own legs in order for a cure to be found for their loved one suffering, they'd do so in a heartbeat. I can fully empathize with that. Should a new wonder cure ever be proclaimed any time soon, caution should be advised, as anguish is typically one of the heartstrings plucked to gently nudge, or coerce those towards experimental treatment. As hard as it may be, one should try and remove the emotion from any decision making and ask yourself, do you really want to be the person first in line?

Currently there is no cure.

Wikipedia cites both the NHS and Autism.org.uk stating that "curing or otherwise treating Autism may not be an appropriate goal". Tell that to the members of Camp Two.
 
Again taken directly from Wikipedia, "Autistic people may be prescribed medication to manage specific co-occurring conditions or behaviours" not actually prescribed for Autism itself. "More than half of Autistic children in the United States are prescribed psychoactive drugs or anticonvulsants. Commonly used drug classes include antidepressants, stimulants, and antipsychotics".

This brings me to the first substantial exhibit.

Here a debate is had, titled "Psychiatrists and the Pharma Industry are to Blame for the Current ‘Epidemic’ of Mental Disorders".(3)
 
In this debate you will see the panel for the motion, which includes Psychoanalyst Darian Leader, in my opinion, give quite compelling evidence to strongly suggest that indeed Psychiatrists, at least some of them, and the Pharma industry may very well have a lot to answer for. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately I believe that the audience who were voting on the motion may have been a tad biased, and quite possibly swayed by their dislike of Mr Will Self, who also in my opinion, could perhaps have formulated his arguments a little better. He was quite clearly emotional - that much is evident. Also in this debate please note the mentions of the DSM.

Today, generally the criteria to satisfy a diagnosis of Autism is governed by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The ICD came first in 1893, first under the original name of the International Classification of Causes of Death before being changed in revision number six in 1948 to it's current name when the World Health Organisation assumed responsibility for it's publication. The DSM began in 1952 evolving from psychiatric hospital statistics, as well as from a United States Army manual. It's rather interesting that the DSM would evolve from a military manual and again the dates are important. Both the ICD and the DSM are updated regularly after what used to be a cycle of roughly 5-10 years, to more frequent revisions happening in more modern times. The ICD is broader in scope than the DSM and there are some other differences related specifically to Autism, but these differences are quite negligible and mostly arbitrary, with both manuals tending to mirror each other closely. If one were to look here at the Wikipedia page and follow the citations, it goes into detail specifically about the many criticisms that the DSM has received.(4)

Cue the next exhibit here. (5) You will see Psychotherapist Dr James Davies give a very in depth analysis on the history of the DSM. He even managed to speak personally with some of the major people responsible for forming some it’s editions, whilst also touching on the involvement of the Pharma Industry. I consider it one of the best and most important presentations for anyone with any interest in medical studies, in particular with relation to mental health and diagnostics, seeing as both the DSM and ICD are the backbone of criteria for main stream diagnostics. Such a thorough and detailed lecture highlights very serious problems with Psychiatry, Psychology and the Pharmacologic Industry, to the point that one really ought at the very least, to start raising eyebrows at what The Narrator has many people believing. One ought to question their own beliefs on the subjects, and ask yourself, what do you really actually know?

In this exhibit here  for The British Psychological Society, the Psychiatrist, Psychotherapist and Author Professor Sami Timimi presents his own compelling argument, stating that Autism is a social construct and does not even exist at all.(6) He questions the benefits of assigning labels and ponders whether these labels could be adverse instead. Timimi outlines that symptoms of Autism need not be pathologized, and the way in which they are pathologized does not happen with any other type of physical condition, disease, illness or abnormality, resulting in a contradiction to integral and robust scientific method. He presents that currently there is no possible way to be able to positively confirm the validity of a diagnosis, there are no blood tests, there are no genetic markers, no clear indications from neural imaging, there is absolutely no empirical or scientific evidence for Autism’s existence. Timimi points out that Autism is descriptive rather than explanatory, thus only a fallacy by way of circular reasoning remains. Here he presents the same argument expanded with additional history and context for the Third Systemic Autism Conference.(7)

So what does that mean for anybody that has an Autism diagnosis?

I would suggest that what these Doctors and Professors are alluding to, is that if we take the overly simplistic division of the two camps mentioned earlier. Those in Camp One are so ambiguous in their presentation that they can almost be completely dismissed as not having anything wrong with them at all, outside of what can easily be described as just a difference in personality, with any presenting symptoms to suggest more serious problems that might be reported or otherwise observed being a result of Iatrogenesis, brought on by different factors including but not limited to medications, and exasperated by receiving a label, or diagnosis as it's currently called. They are positing that receiving these labels whilst anecdotally bringing comfort and relief to some, can more often that not cause more harm than good. It could even be considered as a form of Munchausen syndrome, by self or by proxy.
Receiving some sort of diagnosis or "label" has become fashionable, marketable and thus profitable, helped along rapidly by celebrity endorsement especially in the USA, but now spreading at pace to the rest of the world, where some people seem very eager to receive their own label and using this label as some sort of "get out of jail free card" to excuse what would otherwise be considered inexcusable societal behaviour. Certainly in these cases, labels such as grandiose, narcissist, even sociopath could just as easily fit the bill. Interestingly enough, another controversy over the DSM erupted when the committee on personality disorders for the 5th Edition recommended the removal of Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the manual.

However, by contrast, labels related to neuro-divergence are not allowed to be challenged nor allowed to receive any doubts or criticism even from any other medical experts, but rather the person presenting it is supposed to be confirmed, accommodated, congratulated, and heralded as a role-model that's helping and inspiring all those others out there that are “different” or struggling too. Proudly declaring, often with the case of celebrities and influencers very publicly, that they are “neuro-divergent”, meaning their neurological function is not typical, not normal, and normal is boring, it’s ordinary, meaning they are extraordinary, they are gifted, they have a superpower, and that’s something to desire, that’s something to boast about. 

However, in reality, there is no neurological baseline, even with the closest possible genetic similarities, that being a set of twins. In the wider population, one can talk about a neurological average, but averages are a mathematical construct, often not existing in reality. If there is no baseline, it means we are all different, which of course is very true. We are all different. So, if we are all different, does this mean we are all neuro-divergent? If we are all divergent, then the definition itself loses it’s entire meaning. Divergent from what exactly if a baseline does not exist? Certainly we are all neurologically different, and this difference can indeed be described as a spectrum, but for what purpose and to what end? It would mean that the entire population is on “The Spectrum”, in which case assigning a label to every individual would only add to the ever increasing confusion on the topic. There was, and is, no need to rebrand the old-fashioned label we used to have for explaining that everyone is different, which was the very plain and boring label of “normality”. Being different is normal, no two people are the same, similar maybe, but never the same.

For those in Camp Two, there is no question that there is some severe underlying condition or disorder as the symptoms presented are very apparent. The medical profession could make improvements by reducing the spectrum significantly to only include the more severe cases, or perhaps by giving these more severe cases a new name. Whilst initially this could possibly be confusing, it could actually prove to be beneficial too, as Autism has become diluted to the point that it’s detracting from people that genuinely suffer. The label "Autism" from it's conception to present day throughout any of its iterations in history is insufficient as a diagnosis, as again it offers nothing more than a label due to the fact that there are no existing tests which can confirm the presence of "Autism". Nor does it offer any solution, as there is no effective medication or cure to be had. Rather than receiving a diagnosis of Autism and doctors saying, "well sorry, here's some pills that we know won't change anything, and that's it from us, nothing more we can do, no more investigation necessary", I would suggest investigation is indeed necessary, as the possibility remains that the symptoms are caused by another underlying condition, one that could be tested for, one in which a cure might be found, one in which symptoms mirror those that we currently associate with Autism and perhaps have been misdiagnosed as such.

The criteria has indeed widened to include many more individuals, but the criteria being far too wide is something that many professionals in the field have been vocal about for some time. But like John has found with mentioning MMR vaccine and Autism in the same breath, should you question The Narrator about anything, you will find yourself possibly losing your job, being derogatorily labelled, ridiculed, demonised, de-platformed, funding removed or flat out ignored, which results in a reluctance from some to speak their mind or present their case. This is occurring with increasing frequency, and not just on the subject of mental health, but also throughout all other areas of Science.

This idea that you just follow the science sounds good in theory, but when the actual scientists are not doing that themselves, then what is someone with less scientific acumen left to believe? Complaints have been raised about this multiple times by multiple people for decades, by many quite prominent in their field, with subjects such as Physics, History, Archaeology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Pharmacology, Neurology, Epidemiology and many more.

The Grievance Study Affair, taken from the Wikipedia page here.(8)

Related to a group of Authors that in 2017-2018 worked together to purposefully submit bogus papers relating to certain topics that are currently the flavour of choice, to “highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields”. Four of the papers were published, others were considered. I won’t even mention what the titles of these papers are, you can view them yourself. Interestingly, some of the criticism levelled at the hoax included; From Daniel Engber, “we know from long experience that expert peer review offers close to no protection against outright data fraud", and from Evolutionary Biologist Carl T. Bergstrom, “peer review is not designed to remove fraud or even absurd ideas”. To me that sounds more like affirmation of the groups initial analysis rather than criticism. Indeed peer review is another topic that is receiving more and more complaints of late, and perhaps rightly so.

As another example of problems in Science, Here is Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder detailing how she lost her affiliation with Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy due to her speaking freely on certain topics that The Narrator doesn't currently agree with.(9) Sabine has spoken out many times about the issues regarding "The Science" including fake papers and scams (10 )that are occurring in order to artificially increase citations and here she mentions how this problem is spreading.(11)

She along with other scientists have been smeared for speaking out about the incidences of gatekeeping, bullying, attempts at de-platforming and otherwise demonising anyone that doesn’t toe the narrative line, regardless of whether their science is actually sound. Lets not forget all the prominent scientists involved with the Great Barrington Declaration. Doesn’t it seem absurd that anybody who claims to be so certain in their own scientific beliefs or otherwise, would find it necessary to try and completely shut down and dismiss any alternative discourse or evidence to the contrary? Science is supposed to consider evidence, and make appropriate changes whenever new evidence suggests it should. Science is not supposed to censor, nor is it supposed to be reflexively dismissive.

Does the MMR vaccine have any causal links with Autism?

I don't know. But the point is, neither do majority of the people that instantly dismiss a link between the two. If such a thing as Autism actually exists, and anyone has any credible evidence or research to show a link between MMR vaccines and Autism, I believe it should be considered and held up to the correct honest scientific scrutiny rather than being dismissed summarily. The scientific community are much harder to sway from certain ideas than many people realise. Even when evidence is presented, the task will increase with exponential difficulty when there is no evidence at all. It can happen in reality that something is true or exists without there being any available proof. The trouble here is when one tries to convince another of what is true without that proof or evidence, at the very least you would need to have a structurally sound theory as a solid foundation to build upon. Perhaps if John writes another article on the MMR vaccine he can include citations of any research he has come across. As it's his belief, I'll let him make the argument.

I will agree with John in that I believe one should always have the freedom of choice to decide whether they wish to refuse vaccinations or other treatments. As history has shown, for that matter very recent history, it’s not too inconceivable that in the very near future, the choice a person has of receiving or refusing any medical intervention will be removed entirely from them. As recently as year 2020, some quite vocally and actively called for forced vaccinations. Although as far as I’m aware, no physical force was used in the “western world”, that’s not to say it wasn’t under consideration. There were other methods aside from physical force that were used, involving a highly aggressive campaign adopting alternate forms of manipulation, which some say not only went against the principal of informed consent, but shattered the boundaries. Calls for vaccine passports were made, and these passports are still very much on the agenda. This has the real possibility to widen in scope. As we can see with Autism how the criteria increased to include ever more individuals, what’s not to say that a central authority some day might decide that any citizen they choose, in particular those that don’t comply with the central authority, are not actually rebellious by conscious free thought alone, but rather they have an illness, a condition, one that requires intervention, a cure, a cure that the central authority can readily supply freely to all, and will do so by any means necessary. How many people in the last 41 years are now starting to believe 2+2=5? Are we in, or entering into, a time where perhaps we’ll see regular scheduled flights over the cuckoo’s nest, and as a result be faced with ever increasing medical authoritarianism? Signs are there. And on that note, for anyone interested in a segway that still holds some relevance to topics discussed in this article, have a look at Ken Kesey, a man with a fascinating history, who believed that society often pushes out those who do not fit the conventional ideas of how society expects them to act or behave.(12) These unconventionals were then labelled insane and committed to Psychiatric units. As I mentioned earlier, the dates are important.

Does Autism actually exist?

Quite possibly, but as I have hopefully shown in this article, there are also compelling arguments suggesting it’s very possible that it does not, the idea was not as ridiculous as it may have first seemed. Regardless of what opinions I may or may not hold, the truth is, I don’t know. I also think that “I don’t know” can often be a better place to start than “I believe”.

What I do know, is that Science, and Academia in general are proven to have serious problems. From paper mills producing scam papers to outright organised fraud. Experiments, studies, tests and research are not always adhering to the robust scientific method they should, with results being manipulated to purposefully favour any given hypothesis, cherry picking data, and disregarding results that don’t fit the desired conclusion. Peer review is not the sufficient safeguard that we’re led to believe. Incidences of gatekeeping, bullying, defamation, character assassination, and smear campaigns are rife. Regarding the Pharma industry, it seems that the snake-oil salesmen of old didn't disappear, they rebranded and went from strength to strength dominating an industry that turns over staggering amounts of yearly profits to the tune of hundred of billions, prioritising these profits over all else. Building up a positive reputation by acquiring the rights and patents of some successful products, in doing so they managed to repeatedly slip in harmful wares into their stock, often going undiscovered for dangerously long periods of time. When they are caught out, the disproportionally low fines they receive have no effect on the deep pockets of their shareholders, the mud doesn’t stick, their reputation goes untarnished and they’re able to repeat without so much as a wash and a rinse. I encourage people not to dismiss out of hand any theory that contradicts the narrative, nor to resort to immediate insult towards those presenting such theories. Equating the narrative to unquestionable truth is a dangerous precedent to set, it’s just not science. In any case, the insults are more likely to result in those doubling down on their beliefs instead of seeking to know, they become more susceptible to unfounded fringe elements and unable to separate themselves from observation bias and confirmation bias, especially those that aren’t as scientifically astute. Rather it’s much better to hear out the arguments on both sides and do your own thorough research to the best of your ability. Making a steelman argument for the contrasting views is a good place to start.

The very real possibility remains that perhaps soon in the near future, your ability to rely on the internet as a resource for research could rapidly decline. Should you type a vague question regarding the topics discussed here into the search engine of your choice, or if you were to ask an AI search assistant of your choice as to whether Autism exists, you will most likely only find an answer that fits the current narrative, and other view points will be dismissed as either pseudoscience, or claimed that no such contradictory view points are available. The algorithms are dominating more and more of our lives, claiming to show you more of what you want to see, but in reality, they are showing you more of what someone else wants you to see. Restrictions on access to the internet are coming into force and there are even strong claims and evidence to suggest that certain articles are actively being edited or removed from the internet completely. With the “facts” being checked, who is checking the fact-checkers?

As an extra little titbit back to the topic of Autism. Many people still associate Autism with the film Rain Man, which starred Dustin Hoffman playing the "Autistic Savant" character named Raymond Babbitt. The character was said to be inspired by Kim Peek who, like Case One Donald Triplett, was a real life Savant. Although Peek had received a diagnosis for Autism, this was later believed to be incorrect, and an alternative diagnosis of FG Syndrome was posited. Savants are capable of such incredible feats that they could be said to almost rival a computer even by today's standards. Savant Syndrome is not synonymous with Autism but rather a separate condition that can co-exist. It is estimated that between 0.5% and 10% of those with Autism have some form of savant abilities. As far as the 5th edition of the DSM, Savant syndrome in not recognised as a mental disorder. Due to the extraordinary capabilities of savants it comes as no surprise to hear, that some people are actively seeking to acquire such talents. Cue more human experimentation.

It is said that; “Savant syndrome has been artificially replicated using low-frequency trans-cranial magnetic stimulation to temporarily disable this area of the brain” (This area being the temporal lobe). In an article here on the National Library for Biotechnology Information, an argument is put forward that "savant skills are latent in us all", and seeks "to explore the possibility of artificially inducing such skills in healthy, normal individuals".(13)

Isn't that fascinating? Manipulating the brain with magnets can induce Savant abilities, on "healthy normal individuals", whatever healthy and normal is these days, yes very fascinating indeed. But that's not all magnets can do. According to this study here listed on the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),(14) and this abstract snippet from Cambridge University, using magnets on the brain can even switch off empathy in individuals.(15) One wonders whether these experiments would pique the interest of the military or intelligence agencies? I’m not sure, perhaps not. It’s not like they’ve ever shown any interest or had any involvement in the past regarding a desire to bolster their ranks with individuals possessing increased ability coupled with a lack of empathy. Did I mention Ken Kesey already? He really did have a fascinating history.

Speaking of empathy, and continuing the theme of Autism for that matter, did you know that the IDF, yes that IDF, have a “program designed to train young Autistic adults who want to volunteer for service in the IDF”? And that they are “taught professions for which they have a comparative advantage”?

Ro’im Rachok was founded in 2013 by two Mossad veterans who realized that certain individuals on the Autism spectrum could be unusually skilled at spending long hours analysing aerial reconnaissance photographs and picking out tiny details. In addition to its military benefits, there are social benefits to the program. 

Great stuff, and obviously nothing nefarious here, as there never is when military programs are involved with considerably vulnerable individuals. I mean, it sounds very noble, and a great way to help these individuals gain the support and skills they need to succeed in life where otherwise they might have been excluded. There is absolutely zero evidence that I have came across to suggest, that individuals identified under current criteria as having Autism, have ever been inducted into the military and experimented on with magnets to the brain, with the intention to research and attempt to artificially induce Savant Syndrome, inadvertently using the same magnetic technology to remove empathy from decision making, no evidence at all, not yet anyway, but make of it what you will. Besides, according to this on the Science.org website, scientists have also discovered that they can use magnets to remove people’s belief in God and actually make them less biased towards immigrants.(16)
 
Yes well, all that messing about with magnets to the brain does seem rather confusing. Obviously the IDF and the powers that be in Israel certainly believe in God, they’re well known for their abundance of empathy and they sure love immigration.

Using magnets to remove empathy from human decision making, what will they think of next? I can only imagine what affect this might have on people who would already struggle to orienteer and navigate themselves using a moral compass, or on those that don’t even possess one.
From the simple discovery of the attraction of ferrous metals to each other, to sticking notes to the refrigerator, the electric motor, MRI scans, phone networks and signals, to now even removing empathy from an individual, our uses of electro-magnetism have certainly increased to produce many miraculous marvels of the modern age. But that’s a whole other spectrum.

In closing, the points I have discussed in this article have many threads to pull on. It is a rabbit hole as they say and the warren is huge. I would highly recommend you go down it. I have only rather briefly touched upon the topic of Autism, and although the links I have provided do contain hours worth of a combination of written and video information, there is so very much more to it, with each point really deserving it’s own dedicated article. I admit that how I have presented this is rather rough and unpolished, it was thrashed together in haste rather clumsily and I apologise in advance for my lack of writing experience. I hope with practice I can improve.

I have not written this with any intentions of offending anybody, nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything other than to highlight the relevance and importance of ethical rigorous scientific method, free speech and open debate, whilst also encouraging open-minded and respectful discourse. Whilst presenting factual information that some may perceive as being shaded with light conspiratorial overtones, at the very least I hope I have provided a little food for thought.

🔴The following are the sources and citations intended as hyperlinks throughout the article]

1. Time For Trump To Rekindle Debate On MMR And Autism




⏩Matt Bowen is a researcher and commentator?
Autism/MMR Matt Bowen

23 comments:

  1. Christy Walsh12:41 PM, October 19, 2025

    If I were to be crude I would describe this as shite served as vomit. There is censorship and there is maintaining the integrity of the TPQ with quality articles that might invoke debate or discourse not spread harmful disinformation. This type of misinformation is malicious and costs children's lives.

    The author, if a real person, relies on Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 study. It follows Wakefield’s debunked narrative, while avoiding using Wakefield's name, but repackages the same deceit Wakefield was exposed for: False scientific doubt; “Suppression” framing; Distrust of institutions; Personal-freedom appeal; and De-legitimisation of autism. Every aspect of Wakefield's assertions was built on falsehood on top of falsehood. Wakefield has been totally debunked, and struck of the UK medical register.

    Universally, epidemiological studies have refuted any causal connection. The question is scientifically closed. Meanwhile-instead of the elimination of a highly infectious disease it is re-emerging among the unvaccinated resulting in the deaths of children - exactly for misinformation like this trying to regurgitate Wakefield's debunked lies.

    Sophisticated misinformation is still misinformation. Autism occurs in the womb and not after vaccination. The apparent "rise" in autism is almost entirely explained by better detection of existing cases, not by vaccines creating new ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM1:45 PM, October 19, 2025

      There sems little room for doubt that Wakefield was a fraud.
      I have not reached the view that this is a regurgitation of Wakefield's position.
      But even if it is then it is not the task of this blog to suppress pseudoscience. If that were so, then any religious arguments about the age of the earth or evolution would not see the light of day. Frankie once said he was going to write a piece supporting the flat earth theory (I don't think he ever did) and it would have been carried.
      The blog is not a science blog even though it would defend science against pseudoscience. It is a free inquiry blog and it would be remiss to suppress articles such as this. The article is not a hate piece which would pose a problem. Science is not infallible and even where there is a scientific consensus there has to be room for that consensus to be tested by alternative views. These views can be ridiculed rather than suppressed.
      I noticed from the article the references to Sabina Hossenfelder. While to me she is a great communicator of scientific ideas her clashes with the scientific community have been less than persuasive. Too often her criticisms are latched on to by the conspiracy theorists.

      Delete
    2. Matt Bowen1:59 PM, October 19, 2025

      Christy, you've missed the point of the article entirely, whilst simultaneously proving some of those points with which the article was intended. There is no mis-information being spread, not from me. Your assumption that this has anything to do with Andrew Wakefield or anything to do with linking MMR vaccine to Autism is completely wide of the mark. The article was titled as such because of another article here on The Quill by John Coulter that I was following on from. I can deal with having my piece described as "shite served as vomit", but basing that criticism on false assumptions is indeed crude to say the least.

      Delete
  2. Matt Bowen2:39 PM, October 19, 2025

    Anthony - I agree somewhat with your comment regards Sabine Hossenfelder, I chose to link her videos because she covers more ground surrounding the problems with the scientific community with her own citations, thus saving me time expanding her videos into a written description, there are many other scientists saying the same thing, perhaps in hindsight I could've cited them. Regards conspiracy theorists, whilst I don't think it was an accusation, I wouldn't class myself as part of the tinfoil hat brigade, but that's not to say I have a problem with conspiracy theories per se. People conspire, history has shown it, it's likely to continue, some theories have more merits than others, the "conspiracy theorists" label is branded around too easily for my personal liking and it does its job well in dissuading any investigation into those theories that in my opinion might just deserve more merit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM4:17 PM, October 19, 2025

      Matt - 'many other scientists'? I would say a few rather than many. It might have a comparator in Intelligent Design which claims 'other scientists' have a different view, when in fact they are not really scientists at all.
      Conspiracy theories in general apply to those who imagine conspiracies rather than demonstrate real conspiracies. We live in a world where people conspire to fuck each other over all the time so the idea of a conspiracy is very real. We can often demonstrate conspiracies but never conspiracy theories.
      I don't think you were wrong to cite Sabina H. I find her science communication quite effective, not so her criticisms of the scientific community. I don't think we can generalise from her stated experience.

      I doubt there is much room to contest the observation that the views of Sabina H have been grabbed by conspiracy theorists - she has even dismissed them herself and objected to them using her to support their claims.

      Delete
    2. Christy Walsh6:57 PM, October 19, 2025

      Repackaging disproven claims, is malicious, especially as it affects children's health. You are spreading harmful misinformation and I am not wasting more of my time dealing with it. It is false and designed to cause real harm to children.

      Maintaining the integrity of quality discourse involves censoring disinformation to protect public health. While freedom of expression is vital, it is not absolute and can be limited to prevent direct harm to others. There is a responsibility to ensure that the information disseminated is not dangerous misinformation. The world has seen the damage of engaging in MAGA and QAnon conspiracies -it is not intended to generate legitimate debate or discussion. And if it is given credibility or integrity it does not have destroys the legitimacy of site that reproduce it --maybe we should revisit the bad press Lord Widery got --maybe he was right all along --to hell with facts, science or truth.

      Delete
    3. AM7:36 PM, October 19, 2025

      The responsibility of the blog is to allow free inquiry. That means facilitating inquiry into claims made on behalf of any authority. The claim that an idea is dangerous has resonated down through the ages as a means to censor opinions not approved of.

      If ideas are wrong or considered dangerous then invalidate them by deconstructing them not suppressing them. Science should be about disproving ideas not banning them. The blog has long operated in accordance with the position set out by AC Grayling:

      Because it can do harm, and because it can be used irresponsibly, there has to be an understanding of when free speech has to be constrained. But given its fundamental importance, the default has to be that free speech is inviolate except … where the dots are filled in with a specific, strictly limited, case-by-case, powerfully justified, one-off set of utterly compelling reasons why in this particular situation alone there must be a restraint on speech. Note the words specific strictly limited case-by-case powerfully justified one-off utterly compelling this particular situation alone.

      The above piece does not violate that position whereas censorship of it would.

      It is up to those who are detractors of the piece to prove it wrong rather than prohibiting it.

      Delete
    4. Matt Bowen10:44 PM, October 19, 2025

      Anthony - I am certainly not disagreeing with you that some of Sabine's views have been latched onto by conspiracy theorists as you say, but rather I'm stating firmly that I am not one of them. The article was not intended as a conspiracy theory piece, I freely admit that in places it could be interpretated that way, I state as much in the article, although I did not expect those interpretations to surround that which is put forward in the comments section. I still stand by the claim that there are many other scientists saying the same thing regards problems in the scientific community, as I said perhaps I should have cited more of them, iirc Sabine cites them in her videos. Sabine's criticisms of the scientific community in the videos I did cite, surround smear campaigns against other scientists, scam papers, and paper mills producing such, I see no problem with those criticisms and echo those in the piece. The criticisms do extend to academia in general, in which case you are correct, the critics are not all scientists, they are however still prominent in their respective fields of knowledge or expertise.

      Delete
    5. Matt Bowen10:45 PM, October 19, 2025

      Christy - I'll say it again to be clear, the article is not about linking MMR vaccine to Autism, if it were, I would have wrote as much. Perhaps as I am the Author of the article, it's intentions are obviously much clearer to me. I'm not sure exactly where in the article the harmful misinformation is that you claim I am spreading? There is no repackaging of any claims that you suggest, not even a hint. Your comments are fallacious in more ways than one, it is wrong to question my integrity or indeed that of the publisher on false grounds. You are using my article to attack a premise that I did not put forward, detracting from, in my opinion, the very valuable factual information it does contains. Any personal conclusions I have made from the facts I have presented are clearly stated in the article. The mis-information on this page has came from your pen sir, not mine.

      Delete
    6. Matt Bowen12:31 AM, October 20, 2025

      I should clarify to negate the off-chance of the pedantic, that Sabine cites "some" of them in her videos, certainly not all. I did summarise my own observations and conclusions in the article regards problems within the scientific community and academia, I only used a few examples to substantiate this observation, but the examples are not by any means exhaustive.

      Delete
    7. AM7:05 AM, October 20, 2025

      Matt - your piece did not strike me as a conspiracy theory. The primary parallel that strikes me is from neither the world of science or conspiracy theory but from Foucault who was a philosopher but not a scientist nor a conspiracy theorist.
      Loosely speaking, he took the medical discipline to task arguing that it created unified subjects out of diverse strands for the purposes of control and regulation.
      What I find in this article is not an argument for linking vaccine to autism but a challenge to the categorisation of a range of issues as autism. You seem to suggest that dots are being artificially joined when there is no compelling reason other than discipline and control for joining them.
      You might be wrong but that does not make you a conspiracy theorist nor a peddler of disinformation. Christy has alleged that you are but without demonstrating that to be so.

      TPQ has no difficulty standing over the piece being published. It could not stand over refusing to publish it. The blog is a free inquiry one and therefore cannot expect writers to conform to any TPQ view of the world. You were made aware of the blog policy in advance of publication and your article breaches nothing that TPQ stands for.
      John Coulter, whose article prompted your piece, does not comment on the blog but he might be interested in writing a piece that addresses the issues you raise.

      Delete
    8. Matt Bowen10:53 PM, October 20, 2025

      Anthony - Thank you for the clarification, and indeed many thanks for publishing the piece.

      Delete
  3. Steve R9:24 PM, October 19, 2025

    On conspiracy theories, does anyone actually believe Oswald acted alone? Or that COVID 19 didn't come from the Wuhan institute?

    And I didn't get Christy's umbrage. There's a certain deference paid to whole fields of scientific endeavor which is far from warranted. Much like Big Pharma who fake studies (looking at you Vioxx (Rofecoxib)) for profit were the bastards actually knew it would kill people but they factored in the cost of compensation into the deal and realised they would still make big money so said, fuck it let them die.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM7:20 AM, October 20, 2025

      Steve - conspiracy theories are on a par with religious faith. To be believed without proof.

      Conspiracies abound but they can either be proven or their existence plausibly argued for.

      And on occasion a plausible argument ends up falling apart in the face of evidence. Ladislas Farago's book Aftermath is a case in point.

      I think Christy's umbrage is misplaced in that I feel he is assuming without demonstrating. There is no plausible reason for TPQ not to carry the piece.

      Science corrects itself. There are indeed scientists who will promote themselves and mask their perfidy in scientific wizardry. Yet, science is by far the best form of human knowledge humanity has come up with. Vastly superior to ideology, religion or other fields of knowledge. But science cannot be improved if it can not be critiqued.

      But we are on the same page with all of that.

      Delete
  4. Steve R11:06 AM, October 20, 2025

    The honest scientist absolutely, but those captured by the rigours of everyday life and its bills to pay? I don't blame them for parking their concerns but I do hold their paymasters in contempt.

    Would that i am reminded of the quip regarding Fawkes, the last bastard to enter Parliament with honest intentions! But doubtless in charge of a conspiracy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Henry JoY12:06 PM, October 20, 2025

    Thanks Matt, an interesting read (and I've yet to chase up your links). The scientific process by its nature must allow for discussion & challenge. Otherwise it becomes dogma. I too was touched by John Coulter's recent article. As John recounted his son did have a vocabulary of some twenty words before he had his vaccination and the subsequent health challenges he experienced, and continues to experience. I felt your response was both thoughtful and legitimate. John opinions as those of other parents in similar situations are understandable. Of course correlation of data is not proof.

    In a parallel of sorts, I have been exploring the impact of my diet on my health. What I'm discovering seems really quite startling. We are being manipulated, mislead and even lied to by people we generally would expect better off. Mislead to the extent that public policy dietary health guidelines require a rotation of some 180 degrees!
    Current dietary guidelines have resulted in a surge of diabetes or insulin resistance (precursor to type 2 diabetes). Its estimated that more than 50% of people eating the standard western diet are insulin resistant and some children as young as 7 or 8 are being diagnosed with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease!

    Much of this is down to the flawed lipid/cholesterol hypothesis presented by Ansel Keyes. It is now broadly acknowledged that Keyes massaged the data to fit his theory and we've now ended up with a symbiotic relationship between large food processers and big pharma, a cash cow too big to fail.

    For the sake of your health, for the sake of the health of those you care about, challenge the narrative and support the ethical scientists and journalists who do so on our behalf.

    *Anyone interested in how science is corrupted would do well to read 'The Case Against Sugar'

    "From the best-selling author of Why We Get Fat, a ground-breaking, eye-opening exposé that makes the convincing case that sugar is the tobacco of the new millennium: backed by powerful lobbies, entrenched in our lives, and making us very sick."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt Bowen10:59 PM, October 20, 2025

      Henry - Thank you, please do take the time to view the links when you can. I could've wrote a book with a much more in depth analysis and many more references to support the premises, in hindsight perhaps I should have wrote the article as part of a series instead of condensing it into a single piece. I might expand upon the subject at a later date. Coincidently, one of the conclusions I reached was also spoken about by Dr Suzanne O’Sullivan and Dr Alastair Santhouse covered in a piece for The Telegraph by Anita Singh published on the same day as my article. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/celebrities-making-autism-seem-desirable-and-that-s-misleading/ar-AA1OGgwv People are free to have their own opinions and believe what they wish, but as I said in the article, “I don’t know” can often be a better place to start than “I believe”. It is the "not knowing" which is more likely to prompt further enquiry towards truth, than that of holding to belief, which can tend towards a bias that does not seek truth. In regards to "The Case Against Sugar", Nina Teicholz puts forward the same argument in her book "The Big Fat Surprise". She is not without her critics, but that's par for course. I am familiar with the argument, although I do not wish to state my own personal opinion on the matter in the comment section, as the subject would rightly deserve it's own in-depth article. Interestingly, afaik, the title "Nutritionist", at least in the UK, still does not have any legal protection for it's use, unlike that of a "Dietician". I recall an article describing the formulation of regulation regarding Nutritionist's in the UK as being "piecemeal", I'd have to rummage through my notes.

      Delete
  6. Steve R8:29 PM, October 20, 2025

    HJ,

    The food pyramid is a lie. It should be mainly meat with occasional fruit. Vegetables as last resort, absolutely zero grains or sugar. Check out intermittent fasting to control diabetes. It's how we evolved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Henry JoY8:55 PM, October 20, 2025

      We're on the same page Steve. Went keto last Feb/March and more recently carnivore. Down 20 kgs and two trouser sizes. My belly got smaller and my penis got bigger!

      Delete
    2. AM9:14 PM, October 20, 2025

      A lie or a clash of scientific opinion? Not every wrong view is a dishonest one.

      Delete
    3. AM9:23 PM, October 20, 2025

      I think it's a Viagra diet you are on and then all the energy you expend after meals is causing you to lose weight.!!!

      Delete
  7. Henry JoY11:25 PM, October 20, 2025

    If only!
    Insulin resistance is the begining of type 2 diabetes and impacts on all aspects of human function and performance, particularly circulation.

    Regarding your question re lies or clashes of scientific evidence:
    Keys' massaging of data only became known after his death and once his private notes became public. I doubt his intent would survive an officious bystander test.
    Despite years of contention and debate between Keys and British physiologist John Yudin, who correctly proposed that sugar rather than fats was the the main dietary causal factor for cardiovascular disease Keys went on to participate and front pseudo scientific lobbying on behalf of the sugar and corn syrup industries.

    People can keep eating their cereals and hidden sugar foodstuffs and then join the ques at the pharmacy for statins and whatever else they're having.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM8:11 AM, October 21, 2025

      My lies or clashes of scientific opinion was a query not around fraudulent types like Keys but in respect of what scientists might think about the emphasis to be placed on say fat or alternatively sugar.
      I try to avoid sugar where possible or keep it to a minimum.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)