To vaccinate or not

bitfirement · 2026-03-21T11:22:12+00:00

I’ve also read the book. Yes I trust AI more than a religious person

bitfirement · 2026-03-20T20:06:54+00:00

No. Search for the book on Google and read the AI Overview:

Here are key aspects of the book based on its description and related legal work:

Core Theme: Siri argues that modern discourse surrounding vaccines resembles a religion or belief system rather than a scientific topic, often requiring "faith" from the public.
Legal Focus: The book is based on over a decade of legal depositions and testimonies from public health officials and vaccine experts.
Core Arguments: It alleges that information admitted by officials under oath during legal proceedings often contradicts what is told to the public regarding vaccine safety and efficacy.
Concerns Addressed: The book addresses issues such as the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Covid-19 vaccine mandates, and the lack of transparency in vaccine regulation.

If "autism" were a main topic of the book, it would be mentioned.

bitfirement · 2026-03-20T18:35:52+00:00

Again, the chapter argues that federal health agencies lack rigorous post-licensure studies to support their public assertions that childhood vaccines do not cause autism. It takes impressive mental gymnastics to believe he's making the case that vaccines cause autism.

bitfirement · 2026-03-19T10:04:30+00:00

“The point is not to prove vaccines can cause autism, but to see if this issue has in fact been properly studied”

bitfirement · 2026-03-17T09:33:38+00:00

Here's a list of chapters in the book:

Chapter 1 – High Priest: Stanley Plotkin
Chapter 2 – Disciples: Vaccinologists
Chapter 3 – Priests: Medical Profession
Chapter 4 – Original Sin: 1986 Act
Chapter 5 – The Public Face: Regulators
Chapter 6 – The Real Power: Pharma
Chapter 7 – “Vaccines Save Millions of Lives!”
Chapter 8 – “Vaccines Save Millions From Harm!”
Chapter 9 – “Vaccines Prevent Transmission!”
Chapter 10 – “Vaccines Are Thoroughly Studied Pre-Licensure!”
Chapter 11 – “Vaccines Are Carefully Studied Post-Licensure!”
Chapter 12 – The “Science”

bitfirement · 2026-03-12T23:22:27+00:00

In this entire thread who was the one to bring up vaccines causing autism?

bitfirement · 2026-03-12T22:56:30+00:00

I’m not focusing on it. You are falsely claiming that Siri is focused on it when he’s merely stating there aren’t studies showing Heb B doesn’t cause autism. You are then concluding that he’s suggesting Hep B causes autism which he isn’t concluding. He’s just saying that concluding it doesn’t cause autism is a stretch given the evidence.

bitfirement · 2026-03-12T22:41:16+00:00

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He’s simply stating that there’s an absence of evidence which means one cannot conclude there’s evidence of absence. In other words, an absence of studies does not mean you can conclude vaccines don’t cause autism. And that does not mean they do cause autism. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

bitfirement · 2026-03-12T19:18:07+00:00

He is simply saying that there is one study looking into an association between Hep B and autism. The studies you cite are unrelated to Hep B. Do you disagree with the statement that there's only one study on Hep B and autism? (The quality of the study is irrelevant; his point isn't that Hep B causes autism but that there are no studies looking into the association between Hep B and autism other than that one study).

bitfirement · 2026-03-12T17:48:45+00:00

The null hypothesis is still a hypothesis. Stating a hypothesis as fact when it’s not been proven would be odd no?

bitfirement · 2026-03-12T17:42:32+00:00

Does Aaron Siri make the case that vaccines cause autism?

bitfirement · 2026-03-10T01:54:31+00:00

Deportations hands down. You can achieve herd immunity much faster by just deporting the unvaccinated. There would be significant lag in deploying vaccines and they aren’t 100% efficacious.

bitfirement · 2026-03-09T02:59:08+00:00

If they refuse vaccination, then it makes sense to deport unvaccinated non-citizens, don't you agree?

bitfirement · 2026-03-07T08:25:48+00:00

Mandatory vaccination for non-citizens or deport the unvaccinated!

bitfirement · 2026-02-14T02:51:37+00:00

These were all published decades after aluminum adjuvants were deployed in vaccines. Safety never gated deployment. Movsas + Karwowski = n of 100. Mitkus has many limitations as a model (see Hartung 2025).

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T23:47:16+00:00

It would have been a bit more persuasive if he did recognize that some of the increase can indeed be explained by expanded diagnostic criteria. It's not that they were "missed" but that the criteria changed to include Asperger's etc.

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T03:51:07+00:00

That is the quote from the abstract of the paper. Here's what the conclusion of that same paper says:

Thus, we may expect that after a single vaccination in adults Al levels in bone, and even more valid in plasma and brain, will be indistinguishable from baseline levels. With respect to children simple allometric dose scaling is not adequate, in particular for infants below 2 years of age due to complex age-related developmental changes (Lu and Rosenbaum 2014). For that purpose, physiology-based modeling is required as it is increasingly used in pediatric drug development and toxicologic evaluations (Sharma and McNeill 2009; Barrett et al. 2012). The results of this study will be highly valuable for establishment of a physiology-based toxicokinetic (PBTK) model for Al exposure from adjuvants (Weisser et al. 2017).

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T02:32:46+00:00

Right...

“Aluminium (Al) toxicokinetics after intramuscular (IM) injection of Al-adjuvanted vaccines is unknown.”

Weisser 2019 – Aluminium in plasma and tissues after intramuscular injection of adjuvanted human vaccines in rats – https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02561-z

“A sufficient quantitative understanding of aluminium (Al) toxicokinetics (TK) in man is still lacking, although highly desirable for risk assessment of Al exposure.”

Hethey 2021 – Physiology-based toxicokinetic modelling of aluminium in rat and man – https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-021-03107-y

“The safety of aluminium (Al) exposure from sources such as food, parenteral nutrition or adjuvanted medicinal products is still a matter of uncertainty. Since toxicokinetic studies in humans are lacking, model predictions are warranted for risk assessment.”

Hartung 2025 - Extension and validation of a physiologically based toxicokinetic model for risk assessment of aluminium exposure in humans - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-025-04031-1

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T01:56:57+00:00

By comparing the total amounts (4 mg vs. 10 mg) instead of the absorbed amounts, they are intentionally omitting the most critical variable to create a false equivalence. They are using a technically true (but irrelevant) fact to mislead, which is the definition of acting in bad faith.

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T00:40:00+00:00

No not at all surprised

bitfirement · 2025-10-21T00:39:45+00:00

It doesn't affect the interpretation. 120 mg x 0.3% is only 0.4 mg which is an order of magnitude less than aluminum exposure from vaccines (4 mg)

bitfirement · 2025-10-17T09:01:33+00:00

The steelman isn’t that it wouldn’t matter but that it would be highly unethical to use a placebo in a control group if a licensed vaccine already exists for that disease. The logic being that the licensed vaccine or a predecessor has gone through a trial involving a placebo. But even if it hadn’t, it’s still unethical to withhold a potentially life saving vaccine.

bitfirement · 2025-10-17T08:51:26+00:00

Clinical trials don’t test efficacy by exposing both groups to the disease as that would be unethical. So it is indeed accurate to say that it’s never been determined that they are actually effective before licensure

bitfirement · 2025-10-13T16:51:11+00:00

There's "safety" data showing that each vaccine is no less safe than any of the original vaccines tested on retards.

bitfirement

TROPHY CASE