The mathematical proof that vaccines cause SIDS and autism
I’m going to share two, verifiable anecdotes, that prove, without a doubt, that vaccines cause SIDS and autism. Basically, the medical community claims black swans don’t exist. I easily found them
Most of the SIDS cases (likely 75 percent or more) are due to the childhood vaccines. Vaccines are the main cause of autism as well, likely 75 percent or more.
In fact, pediatric clinics that avoid vaccines have zero, or near-zero, rates of SIDS and autism.
In this article, I’m going to discuss how just two black swans can destroy the medical consensus by proving that the medical community couldn’t have gotten it right on their claims that vaccines don’t cause autism or SIDS:
- A police officer who investigated 300 SIDS cases over a 7 year period (about 3 to 4 cases per month), observed that 75 percent of the cases happened within 48 hours after a vaccine.
- A couple who got their triplets (not identical) vaccinated all developed autism within hours after the shot (and each other).
These anecdotes happened, and they are “statistically impossible” to have happened by chance (at least not in our lifetime).
I don’t believe it is possible to attack this data or explain it away.
Too many SIDS cases happened within 48 hours of the vaccine for the vaccine not to have caused the deaths
In an earlier Substack, I reported the case of a police officer assigned to investigate SIDS cases over a 7 year period who observed that 75 percent of the 300 cases happened within 48 hours of a vaccine.
At the time, I wasn’t sure how to calculate the probability of that happening.
But now, thanks to Professor Norman Fenton, I do.
If SIDS is just randomly happening to babies, and babies are vaccinated every 60 days like clockwork, the chance of a SIDS death happening within any 48 hour window post-vaccine is 1/30.
So if there are 300 babies who died of SIDS, we’d expect that 10 of them, on average, would happen within every 48 hour window post vaccine.
So what are the chances of 75 percent of these deaths (or more) happening within 48 hours after the shot?
The calculation is trivial to get the chance of seeing 225 deaths or more:
>>> poisson.sf(225-1,10)
3.7718601504237225e-213
That’s not a typo. 10 to the -213. That’s as close to impossible as it gets.
In other words, if SIDS is randomly happening with respect to the time of vaccination, it is impossible to have made this observation. We can cherry pick all we want, we’ll never find a cherry like this to pick. Ever.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the vaccines are the primary cause of SIDS, and that they are, at a minimum, causing 75 percent or more of all SIDS cases.
I’ll be making a video of this soon (in August 2023).
What’s so special about this police officer?
She asked the parents of the deceased when the child was last vaccinated!!
Few other police officers in the world would ever ask such a question because they all know that “it couldn’t be the vaccine.” So it isn’t in the protocol.
I am now trying to get this added to the police investigation protocol for SIDS in my county to ask: when was the child last vaccinated and with which vaccine.
So we were lucky enough to find a police officer that asked the question for each of her cases.
And by the way, even if she got it wrong and only 10 percent of the cases were within 48 hours of the vaccine, there is, by random chance, less than 1 chance in a million of observing that.
A second verifiable anecdote in public view
I did a survey on SIDS: asking people about the timing of the deaths.
Was this more likely to happen before or after the nearest vaccine appointment.
Many didn’t remember of course, but the ratio was 2:33 in terms of up to 1 month before:1 month after.
That’s statistically improbable to be that unbalanced if the vaccine isn’t having any effect:
How improbable?
This improbable: 1.4223157528138265e-28
Conclusion: The vaccine appears to be causing at least 33 percent of the SIDS cases and probably more. Having the police statistics would be awesome and we’d know for sure, but of course, nobody really wants to know the answer.
Our autism anecdote is also impossible if vaccines aren’t causing autism
The McDowell triplets (featured in the movie Vaxxed II) all got autism on the same day, within hours of each other.
Did that happen by chance? It happened within hours of their vaccine injection.
Check this out. Nearly 1M views in less than 24 hours after posting.
Again, the calculation is trivial.
Say kids only get autism between ages 1 and 4 to be conservative, so an exposure window of 3 years = 1095 days. The current rate of autism is 1 in every 35 kids per the CDC, but the McDowell triplets were vaccinated on June 25, 2007.
So around 1 in 100 kids would get autism in the 1095 day exposure period back in 2007.
So what’s the expected number of cases of autism in a single day per child? Pretty darn low: 1e-5. So if you have 3 kids, you’d expect to get 3e-5 autism cases in any 24 hour period, on average in 2007.
To see 3 (or more) events in a specific 24-hour window when you expected to see 3e-5 events is:
>>> poisson.sf(2,3e-5)
4.499898751214992e-15
We’d want to multiple this by 1,000 since it could happen on any of the days for the first child. This is still orders of magnitude from ever happening.
This means that the McDowell triplets couldn’t have possibly happened by “coincidence.”
The vaccine they were given just hours earlier is the only possible way this event could have happened. It’s the only probably cause.
This means vaccines can cause autism.
We didn’t need more than one anecdote to prove that conclusively.
Speculation re: genes cause autism to happen at the same time
I just provided an anecdote where all three kids got autism within hours after a shot.
If you want to make the hand-waving argument that it is just a coincidence because triplets all get autism at the same time, simply show me a case where the autism happened in triplets all on the same day where a vaccine was not involved.
Also, explain this anecdote where one twin was given the vaccine and developed autism, and the twin not given the vaccine didn’t. You can simply show us the opposite anecdote where after the vaccine shot, the twin who did not get the vaccine got autism and the twin who got the vaccine did not get autism.
If you cannot provide evidence for either, your argument lacks evidentiary support and is simply not credible.
The medical consensus was that “black swans” don’t exist, i.e., vaccines don’t cause SIDS or autism.
It takes only a single verifiable sighting of a “black swan” to prove that the consensus was wrong.
That’s what we have here: a black swan for SIDS, and a black swan for autism.
The medical community would be best to embrace this and admit their mistake now because the longer they deny this, the less credible they will be in the eyes of the public.
They surely cannot argue against either of these observations.
But I welcome challenges by anyone who thinks they can!
See my pinned tweet for details for how to challenge me.
Fact checkers wanted! Your opportunity to be a hero!!
If you are a fact checker for the mainstream media, I’m happy to reveal the source of the SIDS statistics on condition that the police officer’s name and department is not used so you can verify the story.
Think of the enormous good you would do by validating that the medical community has been misinforming the public on SIDS for decades!
And of course the McDowell story is easily verifiable without contacting me; just watch this short clip from Vaxxed II.
You will accomplish four valuable things by fact checking me:
- Embarrass the medical community
- Create enormous distrust in “medical consensus”
- Cause parents of kids who died from SIDS to seek justice
- Save lives by letting parents know just how dangerous the vaccines are
Summary
With these two anecdotes (which weren’t hard to find), we can completely discredit the medical consensus on SIDS and autism.
Will the medical consensus change? Unlikely, even if these are published as case reports in the medical literature, they’d ignore it as an “anecdote” because that’s what they do.
But that’s not science. Both anecdotes are verifiable and would be impossible to happen under the null hypothesis.
So any real scientist would have to reject the null hypothesis.
The problem is that there are too few real scientists left in the world because they would lose their job, lose their NIH funding, and/or lose their medical license if they speak out against the medical consensus.
So even though the medical consensus won’t change, I thought you all should know the truth: vaccines are the primary cause of SIDS and autism.
See more here substack.com
Header image: First Cry Parenting
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Cris
| #
Can you still get away in the UK without poisoning your child with vaccines?
On a side note, two family friends had children around the same time, one unvaccinated grew up well, the other one started off well and after completing the vaccination schedule, was diagnosed to be on the spectrum, had a sibling two years later, similar pattern, but the sibling’s autism is more severe. Their mum, a doctor used to push the importance of childhood vaccination and would argue with you endlessly on it. I feel sorry for them but I cannot grasp their blind faith in the injections.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
The parents hold a responsibility to protect their children. If the parents blindly allow vaccines to be injected into their children without ever reading a patent or looking substances up in literature, then the fault is theirs.
They don’t want to hear it, but truth is truth. Patents and literature are publicly available; if the parents are too lazy to look, then they failed to watch out for their children, regardless of their “intentions”.
These people trust their doctors and the doctors don’t bother informing them of the risks, even though the risks are found in publicly available literature.
I believe that EUA regulations require known risks to be relayed to the patient. This was not done recently and it could mean that the EUA was broken by the doctors, and that liability exists. Nurses and any test-giver would fall into the same category as the known risks of taking the tests are listed in the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers, yet they failed to inform the patient of them.
I didn’t take it, but if I did, I would be suing, or at least attempting to.
Reply
GogoEng
| #
I don’t understand why this police officer doesn’t submit their findings to a medical scientist.
Someone like highly respected Dr David Livermore, who is sceptical about Lucy Letby’s conviction.
If this officer’s work could be confirmed/verified, then the world could be improved. Right now it is just a police officer, who is potentially a fantasist. And Steve plugging a few numbers into an excel statistics function.
Reply