Introduction
First, a personal note: I’ve been under the weather for the past week, but I’m starting to feel better and get back into the swing of things. Thanks for your patience during my absence.
That being said, my activity on Substack was quite limited. The only topic that gained traction was the discussion sparked by my article on vaccination.
The comments and reactions to my note were incredibly thought-provoking, showing that the connection between vaccination and autism is even more engaging and controversial than I initially expected.
In today’s article, I want to share one angle I’ve been exploring: the vaccination-autism timeline connection. It serves as a starting point for further investigation and dialogue.
Before we begin, there are key concepts to keep in mind to frame our perspective on the conversation.
Key Concepts to Keep in Mind
In my previous work, I’ve highlighted the importance of principles, which help us see the bigger picture. Principles, also known as Frameworks, allow us to understand complex topics without getting lost in the details. Principles are invaluable when navigating nuanced or controversial discussions like this one.
Critical thinking begins with asking the right questions. In my recent video, What Happened To Critical Thinking After COVID19—removed by YouTube for reasons I plan to appeal—I discussed how this approach lets us view reality more clearly. Combining structured questioning with critical thinking can reveal insights often hidden in plain sight.
What follows is a Q&A session with questions from me and answers generated by Meta AI on an exploration of the historical association between the rise in autism diagnoses and the timeline of increased vaccination for DTP.
Take this with a grain of salt, but it does make one ponder: could there be a connection between vaccines and autism?
Exploring the Association
Question: When were the first cases of autism developed
Answer: Autism, or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), has a complex and evolving history.
Early Descriptions
Eugen Bleuler (1911): Introduced the term “autism” to describe social withdrawal in schizophrenia.
Leo Kanner (1943): Published “Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact,” detailing 11 cases of children with social and communication difficulties.
Hans Asperger (1944): Described “autistic psychopathy” in children with social and communication challenges.
Diagnostic Criteria Evolution
1950s-60s: Autism considered a rare condition, often linked to schizophrenia or childhood psychosis.
1980: DSM-III introduced autism as a separate diagnosis.
1994: DSM-IV expanded autism criteria.
2013: DSM-5 introduced Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
Prevalence Over Time
1960s: Estimated prevalence < 1 in 10,000.
1980s: 1 in 2,500.
2000s: 1 in 166.
2020: 1 in 54 (CDC estimate).
Historical Cases
Some researchers suggest potential autism cases in historical figures:
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Albert Einstein
Lewis Carroll
Keep in mind that retrospective diagnoses are speculative [Emphasis mine].
Would you like more information?
Question: When did vaccinations in children begin
Answer: Vaccinations in children have a long history that dates back to 1796 when Edward Jenner introduced the smallpox vaccine. However, the modern childhood vaccination schedule began to take shape in the mid-20th century with the introduction of vaccines for diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) in the 1940s and 1950s.
Key Milestones in Childhood Vaccinations
- 1940s-1950s: DTP1 vaccine introduction
- 1960s: Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines
- 1970s-1980s: Hib and Hepatitis B vaccines
- 1990s-2000s: Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV) and varicella vaccines
- 2000s-present: Rotavirus, influenza, and COVID-19 vaccines
Today, the childhood vaccination schedule includes 15 different immunizations, protecting against various diseases, including Hepatitis B, RSV, rotavirus, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal disease, polio, influenza, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and COVID-19.
So, to recap, the takeaways are:
Autism in children was first identified in the 1940s.
Children began receiving the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) vaccine in the 1940s.
Fun Fact: The CDC was also formed in the 1940s.
I found it interesting that the 1940s was when autism was first identified, which was also the time the DTP vaccine was introduced for children. It’s also notable that systematic autism measurement didn’t really begin until the 1990s—at least from what I’ve seen. If there’s more information out there, let me know.
I can hear it now: Correlation does not equal Causation. :: Rolls Eyes ::
But ultimately, this brings me to a critical question: why vaccinate? Why must childhood vaccination happen in the first place?
The response is that vaccinating children aims to prevent childhood illnesses.
But is the risk associated with vaccination worth the perceived benefit?
For example, consider the DTaP vaccine, which protects against whooping cough. Worst-case scenarios of untreated whooping cough can be serious, even fatal. However, in most cases, it can be treated effectively with antibiotics.
Again, I ask: are we risking children’s lifelong well-being for illnesses that are often treatable? What is the justification for vaccinating at such a large scale?
This ties directly into a broader theme I’ve been exploring in my pending article, The Power of Belief. The power of belief is the foundation of our society. It’s what keeps everything running.
Take taxes, for example. We pay them because we believe in the system that mandates them.
Another example is government—something I’ve written about before in the context of how we often embrace our own enslavement.
Medicine is another big one. Many of us trust in medical theories, like the concept of viruses, because of the beliefs we’ve been taught to accept.
Even space travel is built on belief.
When you really think about it, so much of what we understand about the world relies on collective beliefs.
Over time, those beliefs become reality. Vaccination is no different.
This is why it’s so important to understand the power of belief—so we can navigate the world with clarity and confidence.
Vaccines seem to hold an extraordinary amount of belief-based power, to the point of being viewed as “safe and effective.“ Even when timelines and data suggest a potential correlation between vaccines and autism, many people refuse to entertain the possibility. Why is this?
What are we so determined to protect against that we dismiss any dissenting views?
What if we allowed children to remain unvaccinated?
The idea that we must vaccinate children is rooted in belief—belief in fear, preservation, and the idea that there’s no alternative. Pharmaceutical companies and their marketing arms capitalize on these emotions, driven by financial incentives rather than pure care for public health.
Author’s Note: Let us remember that Rockefeller Medicine, the basis of our modern health care system, which includes vaccinations, was initially funded with financial motivations in mind.
Closing Thoughts
Earlier today, I shared an article by Cindy with my subscribers. It was a deeply personal account of a mother whose perfectly healthy child deteriorated after being vaccinated.
Stories like these remind us that we’re often inundated with so much data and news that we become desensitized to the real human experiences behind these issues. Unless you know someone personally who has suffered a heart attack after COVID or witnessed their child change post-vaccination, you might believe the vaccine is entirely safe.
This brings me to a concept I’ve coined: the “Inverse Cry-Wolf” phenomenon. In the classic tale, the boy falsely cries wolf and loses credibility. In the real world, however, it’s the government or official entities that define what constitutes a “wolf”—what is considered true or credible.
For instance, when thousands of witnesses near the Twin Towers reported not seeing a plane but hearing explosions, their accounts were dismissed.
The public, operating under an “Inverse Cry-Wolf” mindset, assumed these witnesses must be mistaken or lying because their observations contradicted the official narrative.
This phenomenon highlights the importance of learning how to decode both official narratives and so-called conspiracy theories. By understanding these dynamics, we can critically evaluate events without blindly accepting “official narratives.” [Read here]
Returning to the topic at hand: if millions around the country share the same story—is there something here? Cindy’s article brought the personal side of this conversation into focus, and I wanted to highlight it again because it underscores the human experiences that are too often overlooked.
As I wrap this up, I’m optimistic about returning to the flow of things. I have a few articles I’m working to finish and am looking forward to more life, more exploration, and more meaningful work.
If you enjoy this kind of content, consider becoming a paid member. You’ll gain access to all my articles, including my archived articles.
If you’re interested in understanding the world from a truly unorthodox perspective, check out my book—it delves into how our world operates and how so much of it is upheld by belief.
And if you enjoy this work and simply want to show your support, feel free to leave a tip in the tip jar.
Thank you for your time and attention. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Ashe.
Franklin O’Kanu — The Alchemik Pharmacist
Notes and References
(The vaccine given to children in the 1940s was the DTP vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis), not DTaP (which is the acellular pertussis version introduced in the 1990s - Clarification ChatGPT)
Good article which I'm paying forward to the single person in my email rack who might read it, as he is the father of young children.
As for this statement "Take taxes, for example. We pay them because we believe in the system that mandates them."
I must disagree...
"Your observation aligns well with Gustave Le Bon's theories on crowd psychology. In his book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Le Bon discusses how leaders who initially meet the needs of their followers but later betray them can incite intense emotions and reactions from the crowd[1]. He describes how crowds can become impulsive, irritable, and capable of extreme actions when they feel betrayed[1].
This idea can indeed be paralleled with the behavior observed in the chimpanzee group, where the betrayal of the group's expectations by the alpha male led to violent retribution.
References
[1] The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind - Wikipedia"