Will COVID-19 Shots Drive an Epidemic of Autism?
It has been two years, five months, and twenty-seven days (909 total days) since the administration of my employer, the University of Guelph, banned me from accessing my office and laboratory.
As I am still expected to work, I would like to have access to my work spaces. Segregation makes me feel less than human.
I just finished reading a peer-reviewed scientific article that has been electronically published ahead of the print version. The findings have caused me considerable concern.
The paper is entitled “Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations“.
It can be found at this link. Here is the full citation:
Erdogan MA, Gurbuz O, Bozkurt MF, Erbas O. Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations. Neurochemical Research. 2024 Jan 10. doi: 10.1007/s11064-023-04089-2. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38198049.
Key take-home messages are in plain sight in the abstract…
“Our findings reveal that the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine significantly alters WNT gene expression and BDNF levels in both male and female rats, suggesting a profound impact on key neurodevelopmental pathways.”
Both the “WNT” signaling pathway and the molecule “BDNF” play important roles in the development of the nervous system in fetuses.
“Notably, male rats exhibited pronounced autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior.
Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment.
Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility.”
Male rats were the ones in which biochemical changes translated into an obvious manifestation of autism-like behaviours. Note that this was “pronounced”. Interestingly, this correlates with the human condition, in which boys are diagnosed with autism more often than girls.
Of particular concern is the loss of neurons in the brain. Depending on the location of the brain, there were 24-38 percent fewer neurons in males born from dams (mothers) that had received the COVID-19 shot.
“A comprehensive understanding of the risks and rewards of COVID-19 vaccination, especially during pregnancy, remains essential.”
And from the discussion section of the paper…
“Given the public health significance of understanding the effects of COVID-19 vaccination, especially during pregnancy, comprehensive studies are vital.
These should weigh the benefits and potential risks of vaccination, focusing on ensuring optimal neurodevelopmental outcomes.”
Sadly, we should have had this comprehensive understanding and then conducted a fully informed risk-benefit analysis before hundreds of thousands of pregnant women were inoculated. But, maybe that is just my crazy way of thinking.
Some Considerations
- This research was conducted in rats. Pre-clinical studies like these are used to predict what might happen in humans. Sometimes the predictions are close. Sometimes the phenomena do not translate into people at all. And sometimes things are worse in people. The only way to be sure was noted by the authors…
“More extensive studies are needed to confirm these observations in humans and to explore the exact mechanisms.”
- The authors assume that much of the toxicity to the rats is mediated by the spike protein that the modRNA shots get cells in the body to manufacture. However, what they fail to acknowledge is that rats express the low-affinity receptor for the spike protein, unlike humans that express the high-affinity receptor. This means that the spike can only bind weakly to rat cells, but strongly to human cells. As such, I suspect that most of the harm observed in the rats might have been due to inflammation mediated by the lipid nanoparticles and/or immune responses against the spike proteins. If the spike proteins could contribute to the toxicity, then matters could be much worse in hosts with cells expressing high-affinity receptors, which would include people.
- Pregnant rats received the same dose as what is given to pregnant women. Some will try to argue that this represents, on a per body weight basis, a higher effective dose. It might, but we don’t have proof of this. How drugs work can vary across species. There are examples where tiny rodents like mice could tolerate doses of drugs that were toxic in people. So, this is not a solid argument without evidence. And, if it were true, this might be offset by the issue identified in point #2 above, which is that rats are a poor model for assessing the toxicity of COVID-19 shots because they underestimate harms by virtue of expressing the low affinity receptor for the spike protein. Further, the rats in this study were given a single dose, whereas pregnant women can receive up to two doses. The only way to know for sure is, unfortunately, to wait and see how the global human experiment pans out.
Haven’t COVID-19 Shots Been Proven to be ‘Safe and Effective’ for Pregnant Women?
The short answer is no.
The published studies looking at this have largely been flawed and biased. Ever-emerging evidence proves that the harms of the shots have been substantially underestimated in all people.
The only question is by how much? Worse, the studies done during pregnancy have focused most heavily on the women, and less so on the babies. In many cases, babies were followed for only a hand-full of weeks following their birth.
This is much too short. And evaluations of these babies have been overly superficial. A classic trick when it comes to the research and development of novel medical interventions is this: one can make a product appear quite safe if one does not look very hard for harms.
I have two boys, so I became very familiar with babies a bunch of years ago. Let’s face it, the bulk of a baby’s early life consists of crying, drinking/eating, pooping/peeing, and sleeping. There is simply not a lot to evaluate when it comes to harms to babies that would manifest as behavioural issues.
It is not unusual for babies to seem unhappy and uncomfortable on a regular basis. In other words, one cannot be confident in declaring an absence of a disorder in newborns and even toddlers.
For example, I have heard that failing to make eye contact can be a potential sign of autism in young children. Obviously, such an observation cannot be made in a baby; they don’t start making consistent and intentional eye contact for quite some time.
So, be very careful when you hear people declaring that there is no evidence of harm to children born to mothers that received the COVID-19 shots. There simply has not been enough time to properly evaluate this.
Is it True That Any Harms Due to Vaccines Will Be Identified Within the First Six Weeks?
I have lost count of the number of my colleagues that have erroneously guaranteed the public that any harms due to vaccines will be identified within the first six weeks post-inoculation.
Beyond that time, they say there is no possibility of safety signals arising. In short, the claim is that if someone makes it past the magical six-week window with no obvious harms, then they are home-free.
This is a load of bunk. The paper being discussed here highlights why nobody should be misinforming the public in this way.
If COVID-19 shots administered to pregnant women can cause neurological harms in their developing babies, including alterations that lead to things like autism, it is almost certain that these could not be identified within the first six weeks.
Humans need to gain certain abilities to interact with the world around them before health care professionals can properly assess for evidence of complex disorders. My goodness, some harms aren’t noticed until adolescence if hormonal changes are required to unveil them.
This means there is the potential for harms to babies born to mothers that were coerced into getting the COVID-19 shots that we are still unaware of.
An Oncoming Epidemic of Pediatric Neurological Disorders?
Autism is a well-studied phenomenon. Here is a non-controversial but very important reality about the diagnosis of autism…
“Although evidence suggests that some children can be definitively diagnosed by 2 years of age, many are not diagnosed until 4 to 5 years of age.”
Brian JA, Zwaigenbaum L, Ip A. Standards of diagnostic assessment for autism spectrum disorder. Paediatrics and Child Health. 2019 Nov;24(7):444-460. doi: 10.1093/pch/pxz117. Epub 2019 Oct 24. PMID: 31660042; PMCID: PMC6812299.
Importantly, many diagnoses of autism do not occur until up to five years of age. Many researchers agree that the average time to diagnoses is in the ballpark of three years old.
Here is the problem: Children born to mothers that were coerced into taking COVID-19 shots have not yet reached the age of three. We must now wait another 1.5 years, at least, and likely two or more years to accrue data from enough children to determine whether harms have been caused.
Despite being brutally and endlessly harassed and defamed, and criminally impersonated by many colleagues, I have stood my ground since May 2021 to promote the truths about COVID-19 science.
I initially focused on my concerns for the most innocent among us; our children. It is going to break my heart should we discover that hordes of medical and scientific professionals, public and government officials, and media outlets have facilitated harms to babies; harms that may not become detectable for another couple of years.
I sincerely hope that the study discussed here represents something unique to rats or the experimental design and that there will be no relevance of the profound biological harms to human babies.
It would be a great travesty if innocent babies have been and continue to be harmed due to the neglectful conduct of health practitioners and public health ‘experts’.
Way back in 2020 I tried forewarning people that the real ‘speed of science’ is slow, plodding, and methodical. It typically takes many years to get a novel medical intervention into routine use due to the amount of experimental work that needs to be done to ensure safety and efficacy.
So, it is extremely upsetting to see a pre-clinical study like this being conducted and published three years after a public rollout. This should have been done years before the rollout. Yes, many years! Why?
First, a study like this would have triggered many more safety studies. Second, if a rationale could still be built to attempt usage during pregnancy, there would need to be several years-worth of active follow-up in a limited clinical trial to assess the potential risk of inducing something like autism.
This is why the average time to get novel vaccines through the full experimental pipeline is more than ten years. Corners should never be cut in the development of vaccines. Many were cut with the COVID-19 shots.
To those that pushed the modified RNA COVID-19 shots on pregnant women, including all the pediatric societies, you better step up and practice due diligence now. You need to carefully and thoroughly screen children born to mothers that you inoculated.
And you need to begin this early in the babies lives to facilitate prompt diagnoses of any issues, such as autism, that have the potential to arise. Why? Because early intervention can maximize the mental and cognitive potential of children that need to compensate for neurological harms suffered during early development.
For moms that took the COVID-19 shots while pregnant: If the future reveals that these should never have been recommended to you, the fault should be placed on the medical and public health professionals who should have known far better.
I highly recommend that you keep a very close eye on your developing child. If you notice anything out of the ordinary, see a physician who does not remain entranced by the COVID-19 narrative.
Early intervention strategies help all children reach their maximum potential.
Were the COVID-19 Shots Used in the Public Rollout Experimental?
Based on what was discussed here, we have a preclinical study that provides evidence affirming speculations that many of us made years ago due to our understanding of the mechanisms of action of the modRNA technology.
This study arose due to ‘preliminary concerns’ that developed since the public rollout began. Other problems have been similarly identified post-rollout.
Now, the first babies from which we can obtain clinically relevant data to rule in/out these concerns are those that have already been born to mothers who were assured the shots were completely ‘safe and effective’.
So, you tell me if reference to the shots being experimental during the public rollout was legitimate?
In my expert opinion, the past three years have been an example of how one destroys the scientific process, and faith in it, by inverting its sequence. Let’s hope we don’t get data in the future that make the power brokers that drove the COVID-19 narrative say
“Whoops! I guess we should have run proper clinical trials in pregnant women before we propagandized them with the ‘safe and effective’ narrative”!
Yet Another Call for a Moratorium on modRNA Shots
I have made this declaration many times, but will do so again. Here we are faced with yet another legitimate scientific question. Could the modRNA shots potentially cause neurological harm to developing babies, eventually manifesting itself as autism or other disorders?
Until this and the massive number of other outstanding questions are answered, let’s place a moratorium on this technology (like Florida did)! Or, are we going to continue to inject pregnant women while we wait to see if this problem plays out in a few years?!?
Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?!?
At times like this, I feel so exasperated. It seems akin to farting in the wind.
Wake up and smell the stink, people. Our medical and scientific enterprises are rotten to the core.
See more here substack.com
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.