www.jsonline.com/story/news/h...
Thank you Sec'y Johnson for keeping the evidence in WI's vaccine messaging, unlike RFK Jr's CDC. There is no link between vaccines and autism; 24 studies over more than 2 decades have not shown a link. The Wakefield study purporting a link was retracted for fraud.
Thank you Sec'y Johnson for keeping the evidence in WI's vaccine messaging, unlike RFK Jr's CDC. There is no link between vaccines and autism; 24 studies over more than 2 decades have not shown a link. The Wakefield study purporting a link was retracted for fraud.
Wisconsin health agency says CDC linking vaccines with autism is false
DHS Secretary Kirsten Johnson said the message promotes false information that is not only irresponsible, but dangerous to public safety.
www.jsonline.com
November 21, 2025 at 10:29 PM
www.jsonline.com/story/news/h...
Thank you Sec'y Johnson for keeping the evidence in WI's vaccine messaging, unlike RFK Jr's CDC. There is no link between vaccines and autism; 24 studies over more than 2 decades have not shown a link. The Wakefield study purporting a link was retracted for fraud.
Thank you Sec'y Johnson for keeping the evidence in WI's vaccine messaging, unlike RFK Jr's CDC. There is no link between vaccines and autism; 24 studies over more than 2 decades have not shown a link. The Wakefield study purporting a link was retracted for fraud.
5/ research and some garbage studies (like Wakefield'infamous retracted one) that support his conspiracy theory. He argues (in the voice of the CDC - he's really reminding me of that zombifying Cordyceps fungus in The Last of Us, with his co-opting of that agency) that “studies supporting a link...
November 21, 2025 at 10:26 PM
5/ research and some garbage studies (like Wakefield'infamous retracted one) that support his conspiracy theory. He argues (in the voice of the CDC - he's really reminding me of that zombifying Cordyceps fungus in The Last of Us, with his co-opting of that agency) that “studies supporting a link...
Now retracted within one day due to bad publicity.
November 21, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Now retracted within one day due to bad publicity.
Autism can be diagnosed at 3 months old. The vaccines falsely associated with autism are started at 6 months. The Lancet that published a faulty study decades ago retracted it and the author lost his medical license, end this ridiculous myth once and for all.
November 21, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Autism can be diagnosed at 3 months old. The vaccines falsely associated with autism are started at 6 months. The Lancet that published a faulty study decades ago retracted it and the author lost his medical license, end this ridiculous myth once and for all.
It's not accurate at all.
You "challenge orthodoxy" with hard data and facts.
Saying shit based purely on vibes and clinging to ONE (1) study run by a quack that was retracted because of major problems with its methodology... ain't it.
You "challenge orthodoxy" with hard data and facts.
Saying shit based purely on vibes and clinging to ONE (1) study run by a quack that was retracted because of major problems with its methodology... ain't it.
November 21, 2025 at 8:38 PM
It's not accurate at all.
You "challenge orthodoxy" with hard data and facts.
Saying shit based purely on vibes and clinging to ONE (1) study run by a quack that was retracted because of major problems with its methodology... ain't it.
You "challenge orthodoxy" with hard data and facts.
Saying shit based purely on vibes and clinging to ONE (1) study run by a quack that was retracted because of major problems with its methodology... ain't it.
November 21, 2025 at 8:25 PM
I just sneezed and my balls retracted a bit. Is this old age?
November 21, 2025 at 8:24 PM
I just sneezed and my balls retracted a bit. Is this old age?
Update: Coast Guard retracted the order after the bad publicity
November 21, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Update: Coast Guard retracted the order after the bad publicity
Why ask that? Obviously not, it's still the political news most people is talking about, still the last real Truth Social post the Felon made, and it still hasn't been deleted or retracted by him. Not to mention @algreen.house.gov has vowed to do what should be done in regards to it...
Had some additional thoughts on the sedition thing that I felt compelled to jot down. www.pbump.net/o/so-were-ju...
So, we’re just moving on from the sedition-execution thing?
It's quite tidy how the whole thing worked out, in a way. Democratic members of Congress, recognizing that President Trump would be more than happy to dispatch the military to aid his political object...
www.pbump.net
November 21, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Why ask that? Obviously not, it's still the political news most people is talking about, still the last real Truth Social post the Felon made, and it still hasn't been deleted or retracted by him. Not to mention @algreen.house.gov has vowed to do what should be done in regards to it...
Hey heroin addict brain worm guy, this government site refutes your claim. If you are going to lie, clean up all the gov sites. Elsevier (they own The Lancet) retracted this years ago.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines
An official website of the United States government
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
November 21, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Hey heroin addict brain worm guy, this government site refutes your claim. If you are going to lie, clean up all the gov sites. Elsevier (they own The Lancet) retracted this years ago.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
“Scientific orthodoxy?” How about “proven scientific knowledge.” The only paper to ever claim that vaccines cause autism was retracted and the lead doctor was stripped of his license to practice medicine. There is no link and there never was a link.
November 21, 2025 at 7:28 PM
“Scientific orthodoxy?” How about “proven scientific knowledge.” The only paper to ever claim that vaccines cause autism was retracted and the lead doctor was stripped of his license to practice medicine. There is no link and there never was a link.
#AI unreliable in identifying retracted #research papers, says study retractionwatch.com/2025/11/19/a...
AI unreliable in identifying retracted research papers, says study
LLMs don’t reliably identify retracted papers, a new study finds. (Image: DALL-E) Large language models should not be used to weed out retracted literature, a study of 21 chatbots concludes. …
retractionwatch.com
November 21, 2025 at 7:17 PM
#AI unreliable in identifying retracted #research papers, says study retractionwatch.com/2025/11/19/a...
You know what started all this BS?
A paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study and Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license.
EVERY large study has demonstrated NO CONNECTION between vaccines and autism.
A paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study and Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license.
EVERY large study has demonstrated NO CONNECTION between vaccines and autism.
this man has blood on his hands and everyone who supported him and excused him has blood on their hands and I do not want to hear a single fucking Democrat with any position other than "impeach and remove him immediately"
he and his MAHA movement are child killers
he and his MAHA movement are child killers
Breaking News: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he personally instructed the CDC to abandon its position that vaccines do not cause autism. The move underscores his determination to challenge scientific orthodoxy — in this case, that vaccines save lives — and bend the health department to his will.
November 21, 2025 at 7:13 PM
You know what started all this BS?
A paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study and Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license.
EVERY large study has demonstrated NO CONNECTION between vaccines and autism.
A paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study and Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license.
EVERY large study has demonstrated NO CONNECTION between vaccines and autism.
You know what started all this BS?
A paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study and Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license.
EVERY large study has demonstrated NO CONNECTION between vaccines and autism.
A paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study and Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license.
EVERY large study has demonstrated NO CONNECTION between vaccines and autism.
November 21, 2025 at 7:12 PM
You know what started all this BS?
A paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study and Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license.
EVERY large study has demonstrated NO CONNECTION between vaccines and autism.
A paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
In 2010, The Lancet retracted the study and Dr. Wakefield lost his medical license.
EVERY large study has demonstrated NO CONNECTION between vaccines and autism.
Now he has retracted. Little mind, little man!
✨
🙏
🙏
November 21, 2025 at 7:03 PM
Now he has retracted. Little mind, little man!
What he fought against started just like what we're seeing today:
Swastikas being okay in the US Military, as long as they didn't create division.
(Yes, I know it was retracted. But that it was there at all is a canary in the coal mine.)
Swastikas being okay in the US Military, as long as they didn't create division.
(Yes, I know it was retracted. But that it was there at all is a canary in the coal mine.)
November 21, 2025 at 6:39 PM
What he fought against started just like what we're seeing today:
Swastikas being okay in the US Military, as long as they didn't create division.
(Yes, I know it was retracted. But that it was there at all is a canary in the coal mine.)
Swastikas being okay in the US Military, as long as they didn't create division.
(Yes, I know it was retracted. But that it was there at all is a canary in the coal mine.)
They have since retracted this due to the backlash
November 21, 2025 at 6:38 PM
They have since retracted this due to the backlash
Yes parents are absolutely wrong about autism. The GD patients and families are wrong to say the meds were life saving? How so? Explain.
Reed published a study on bicalutamide? When and where? Where did she do a peer reviewed study like the ones WPATH cite that haven't been retracted?
Reed published a study on bicalutamide? When and where? Where did she do a peer reviewed study like the ones WPATH cite that haven't been retracted?
November 21, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Yes parents are absolutely wrong about autism. The GD patients and families are wrong to say the meds were life saving? How so? Explain.
Reed published a study on bicalutamide? When and where? Where did she do a peer reviewed study like the ones WPATH cite that haven't been retracted?
Reed published a study on bicalutamide? When and where? Where did she do a peer reviewed study like the ones WPATH cite that haven't been retracted?
I would say many will, when the retracted versions will be released. They will willingly share the info. Right now, too risky in many ways
November 21, 2025 at 5:47 PM
I would say many will, when the retracted versions will be released. They will willingly share the info. Right now, too risky in many ways
This is the sort of discovery that would lead to an academic paper being retracted if the Supreme Court decision was peer reviewed work.
Fundamentally flawed and should have been known to be so at the time of decision
Fundamentally flawed and should have been known to be so at the time of decision
1/🧵 The good people of the Cabinet Office has found a copy of the Department for Education and Employment’s drafting instructions* for the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999.
* the Parly Counsel does vetting only in this case, so the instructions is to DfEE’s in-house lawyers
* the Parly Counsel does vetting only in this case, so the instructions is to DfEE’s in-house lawyers
Sex Discrimination Gender Reassignment Regulations 1999 Drafting Instructions - a Freedom of Information request to Government Equalities Office
Please send me copies of the Sex Discrimination Gender Reassignment Regulations 1999’s Drafting Instructions given to the Parliamentary Counsel. If you can’t locate all versions, send me any one of th...
www.whatdotheyknow.com
November 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
This is the sort of discovery that would lead to an academic paper being retracted if the Supreme Court decision was peer reviewed work.
Fundamentally flawed and should have been known to be so at the time of decision
Fundamentally flawed and should have been known to be so at the time of decision
I've said before that I will not support any politician that does not protect trans rights.
If that protection comes alloyed with "it's ok to bomb -those- people" that support is retracted.
The whole point is we don't get to decide whose lives are or are not important.
We all burn together.
If that protection comes alloyed with "it's ok to bomb -those- people" that support is retracted.
The whole point is we don't get to decide whose lives are or are not important.
We all burn together.
November 21, 2025 at 5:39 PM
I've said before that I will not support any politician that does not protect trans rights.
If that protection comes alloyed with "it's ok to bomb -those- people" that support is retracted.
The whole point is we don't get to decide whose lives are or are not important.
We all burn together.
If that protection comes alloyed with "it's ok to bomb -those- people" that support is retracted.
The whole point is we don't get to decide whose lives are or are not important.
We all burn together.
For some reason, not surprised by this...👇
Women seem to retract fewer papers than men — but why? www.nature.com/articles/d41...
"...under-represented when it comes to retracted articles."
Women seem to retract fewer papers than men — but why? www.nature.com/articles/d41...
"...under-represented when it comes to retracted articles."
Women seem to retract fewer papers than men — but why?
In an analysis of nearly 900 retracted medical-research studies, the number of female authors is disproportionately low.
www.nature.com
November 21, 2025 at 5:34 PM
For some reason, not surprised by this...👇
Women seem to retract fewer papers than men — but why? www.nature.com/articles/d41...
"...under-represented when it comes to retracted articles."
Women seem to retract fewer papers than men — but why? www.nature.com/articles/d41...
"...under-represented when it comes to retracted articles."
I looked it up wanting to know more about it since it wasn't in any news I had seen and I wanted to learn more about it
Was surprised it was from 2020
(Disappointed it wasn't happening now)
Other people asked when it was as well
You simply dating it would not have retracted from the beauty of it
Was surprised it was from 2020
(Disappointed it wasn't happening now)
Other people asked when it was as well
You simply dating it would not have retracted from the beauty of it
November 21, 2025 at 5:30 PM
I looked it up wanting to know more about it since it wasn't in any news I had seen and I wanted to learn more about it
Was surprised it was from 2020
(Disappointed it wasn't happening now)
Other people asked when it was as well
You simply dating it would not have retracted from the beauty of it
Was surprised it was from 2020
(Disappointed it wasn't happening now)
Other people asked when it was as well
You simply dating it would not have retracted from the beauty of it