Guest Post by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
The article below by Danish researcher Soren Korsgaard examines the official narrative that vaccines are not a cause of autism. He focuses on the Madsen paper which the CDC cites as proof that vaccines do not cause autism. Korsgaard found that instead of comparing a vaccinated population with an unvaccinated one, the Madsen study compared a heavily vaccinated population with a slightly less heavily vaccinated one. In other words, the compared groups are likely to show the same results.
Korsgaard also found data problems and manipulation of the data. In other words, the study was rigged to produce a vaccine favorable result.
This is not surprising as the Madsen paper, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the work of two Big Pharma shills, Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen and Anders Hviid, whose conflicts of interest are large.
Madsen is chief development officer and executive VP of Leo Pharma, a pharmaceutical company with a history of misconduct problems.
Anders Hviid seems to have the role in Denmark that Tony Fauci had in the US. He has worked extensively with researchers financed by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Janssen.
Korsgaard concludes that the proof that vaccination does not cause autism is “hired science.”
Unfortunately, in the world today money buys whatever it wants. It buys democratic elections, which means elections are sold, not voted. It buys “expert witnesses” in tort and in criminal trials. It buys scientists’ testimony in public policy issues such as vaccines. So-called “conspiracy theorists” ask: “who rules us?” The obvious answer is money.
This has likely been true since the 12th century when Alain of Lille said: “Not Caesar now, but money, is all.”
Do Vaccines Cause Autism? Here is Everything That you Need to Know.
By Søren Roest Korsgaard, author of The New September 11th: Solving the COVID-19 Pandemic.
1.0 Introduction
One of the most polarizing issues about vaccines is whether they can cause autism. Formally known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the condition is a developmental disorder primarily characterized by deficits in communication and interaction as well as restricted, repetitive behaviors, interests, or activities.
Across the world, autism rates are climbing, if not skyrocketing. In the United States, the rate has increased from 1 in 150 in the year 2000 to 1 in 36 in 2022. Wider criteria and more screening contributed to these outcomes, but the lingering question remains: Did vaccines play a role at all? If vaccines are implicated, it is only a contributing factor because autism undoubtedly has multiple causes.
Why should you care? All citizens should familiarize themselves with the subject because it is likely that you, your children, or someone you know will be affected by autism. If you decline a vaccine for yourself or for your child, you will inevitably be called upon to defend that decision—and to produce evidence on the spot—by your pediatrician, by your spouse, by the school nurse, and by people who have never once questioned the vaccine schedule they are defending. This article will provide you with the needed ammunition to fight back.
1.1 The Mainstream Viewpoint
Despite studies being published with some frequency both for and against the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, mainstream organizations aggressively enforce the view that it is antiscience to conclude that vaccines may be implicated.
To counter a more moderate view on the subject initiated by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CNN published a one-sided hit piece. Dr. Alycia Halladay, the chief science officer for the Autism Science Foundation, alleged that vaccination “remains the number one studied environmental factor in autism, and there is no link whatsoever” and “vaccines have 1,000% been exonerated” [1]. Dr. Sean O’Leary further alleged that links between vaccines and autism have “been debunked many times” and that “it is considered settled science” [1]. Meanwhile, more than 60 “leading” mainstream health organizations issued a statement that scientists have for over 25 years “thoroughly” studied the hypothesis and “all have come to the same conclusion: Vaccines are not linked to autism” [2].
Are these assertions true? Just before the “leading” health organizations issued the statement, a study of 47,155 nine-year-old children showed that vaccination was associated with autism in a dose-dependent manner. Children with one vaccination visit had 1.7-fold higher odds of autism, but those who had received multiple vaccinations had a 4.4-fold increased risk compared to children with no vaccination records [3]. A dose-response relationship is a strong indicator of a causal association.
The mainstream organizations were therefore spreading misinformation when they stated that “all” studies have shown that vaccines and autism are unrelated. What they really meant was that the scientists they endorse (and usually sponsor) had found no link.
The deception is a good cause for further investigation.
1.2 The Mainstream Evidence
To support the claim that vaccines and autism are entirely unrelated, mainstream organizations cite epidemiological studies in “leading journals” as proof. The so-called Madsen paper, which centered on the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine, is the central piece of evidence, having been cited by more than 1,100 scientific publications [4]. In fact, as recently as July 2024, the CDC referenced it as part of the proof that “vaccines do not cause autism” [5].
The opposition—those who maintain that vaccines do cause autism—rely on their own studies, which are typically comparisons between vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children. These studies are virtually never published in so-called leading journals, but by much smaller publications that are independent of the vaccine industry. This means that few medical professionals will ever see the data.
It is obvious and should be common sense that if you want to know whether vaccines cause autism, you compare a completely vaccinated population with an unvaccinated population. The institutions that produce and promote vaccines have never published such a study; instead, they vindicate all vaccines on the basis of comparing a heavily-vaccinated population with a slightly-less-heavily-vaccinated one. This means that if the effect comes from aluminum adjuvants, which are used in nearly every vaccine, the cumulative antigen load, the compressed early schedule, or even interactions between products, mainstream study designs will mostly or entirely hide it.
While pro-vaccine doctors and others will reject out of hand research by critics that has found a positive relationship between vaccines and autism, they will be cornered if even their own highly biased pro-vaccine studies, upon re-examination, undermine their safety claims.
Therefore, I will now meticulously analyze the Madsen paper—the so-called proof that vaccines do not cause autism—to answer the following question: Did it in fact refute the hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism or did it in fact suggest the opposite?
1.3 Conflicts of Interest
As I show in my book, The New September 11th: Solving the COVID-19 Pandemic, the drug industry has corrupted the field of medicine. Public health agencies and pro-industry organizations cannot be trusted due to their conflicts of interest. Consequently, we should only trust medical products that have been rigorously tested, examined, and re-examined by independent, unbiased researchers.
In a highly recommended 2009 exposé, Dr. Marcia Angell, the former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, warned that the drug industry had corrupted the field of medicine. Angell’s conclusion, which she delivered without reservation, was stark:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” [6].
With this in mind, we should note that the Madsen paper was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which later underwrote the clinical data of the COVID vaccines. We should therefore remain vigilant and pay close attention to scientific misconduct.
Now, let’s focus on the paper’s two principal authors: Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen and Anders Hviid. Do they have conflicts of interest? They declared none but noted that their research was supported by grants from the CDC.
Long before the CDC showed us its true colors during the COVID pandemic, the United Press International (UPI) revealed that the organization functions as a vaccine company rather than as an unbiased organization advising the public, government, and healthcare workers. Members of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee were found to be on industry payrolls, sharing patents, and owning vaccine stocks. The CDC itself was deeply invested, collaborating with the industry on numerous development projects and licensing agreements under a 1980 law promoting such partnerships [7].
Looking closer: a background check reveals that Madsen has been heavily involved with the drug industry throughout his career. As of 2025, he is the Chief Development Officer and Executive Vice President of Leo Pharma, a drug company with a history of allegations of serious misconduct [8-10].
Anders Hviid is currently the Head of Department and Professor at the Department of Epidemiology Research of the Statens Serum Institute (SSI), a vaccine research center, producer (until 2017), and developer operating under the auspices of the Danish Ministry of Health. Judging by its financial reports from 2016 and 2021, SSI generates tens of millions of dollars in revenue every year from vaccines and other medical products [11-12]. Hviid is informally known as the Danish government’s vaccine czar.
Hviid has produced several papers on the mRNA vaccines with researchers bankrolled by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSK, Janssen, and various governments, proclaiming that they offer “significant health benefits” and “high protection” against COVID-19-related hospitalizations [13-16]. As recently as February 2024, he declared that his studies showed that serious side effects were “extremely rare” and that “people can safely continue to get vaccinated” [17]. As regards the HPV vaccine, his research “clearly shows” that it is “safe” [18]. Given his role in whitewashing these toxic vaccines, Hviid’s conclusion that autism is not caused by the MMR vaccine is not exactly inspiring confidence.
1.4. The Claims of Madsen et al.
Madsen and Hviid looked at every child born in Denmark between January 1991 and December 1998—537,303 children in total. Of those, 440,655 (82%) received the MMR vaccine.
Their conclusion: Those who had not received the MMR vaccine had an 8% higher risk of autism than those who had been vaccinated. They also claimed that the timing of vaccination did not matter.
Let’s look closer.
1.5. The Devil is in the Details
Madsen and Hviid worked with a large dataset from the Danish National Board of Health (DNBH), but their actual autism numbers were tiny: 53 cases among the non-vaccinated and 263 among the vaccinated.
With so few cases, even minor data errors can swing the results. Therefore, we must necessarily ask: Did they verify that the children diagnosed with autism were really vaccinated or not? Answer: No. They simply assumed the data was correct, and they went one step further and even treated every child as non-vaccinated until the DNBH database reflected otherwise.
In hindsight, were these sound choices? Answer: No. A 2017 paper in the Danish Medical Journal analyzed DNBH records and discovered a major discrepancy: 55% of children registered as non-MMR-vaccinated had actually been vaccinated [19]. So, the data was corrupted. Consequently, the Madsen study was strongly biased in favor of finding no difference between the two groups or a smaller difference than truly exists.
There is more. More than a third of the children were tracked long enough to receive the vaccination—but the study ended before the age at which autism is usually diagnosed. This flaw can quietly hide a real effect and make it look like there is none. Madsen tried to address this issue in part by categorizing the vaccinated children by the year they received the injection. Nevertheless, the unadjusted numbers for each year showed that the rate of autism was higher among the vaccinated.
This is a surprising result if there is truly no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. As previously mentioned, the supposedly non-vaccinated group in the study was not clean: many of them had been MMR vaccinated. The misclassification has the mathematical effect of blurring the contrast between the two groups and pushing the numbers toward “no difference.” So any elevated risk will likely be higher in real life.
Looking closer at the breakdown by year of vaccination, there was a large and unexplained increase in autism diagnoses among the vaccinated, which Madsen and Hviid never addressed. For example, the rate sharply increased from 12.3 to 20.2 per 100,000 person-years between those vaccinated in 1993-1994 and 1995-1996.
And there is a deeper problem. If the MMR vaccine causes autism, one must investigate the onset of disease, and not merely when the diagnosis was recorded. The reason is obvious: Diagnosis may occur years after disease onset. So, for example, if a child developed vaccine-induced autism at 18-24 months but was not diagnosed until years later, it would not be captured by the study. Madsen and Hviid admitted that they had no “information on when the first autistic symptoms were noted,” and “no information on whether the children with autism had regression,” even though this is the specific form that has been claimed to be associated with vaccination [4].
In the end, despite the data being strongly biased in favor of finding no association, it showed a 45% higher risk of autism among the MMR-vaccinated. A fact never mentioned in the paper. Madsen and Hviid responded by “adjusting” all of the data, which completely flipped the 45% higher risk into an 8% protective effect. Can we interrogate the adjustments and verify their scientific justification? The answer is no. None of the calculations—much less the underlying data—were shown in the paper or provided elsewhere. Requests for the raw data have been rejected.
When Dr. Samy Suissa, a professor in the Departments of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Medicine at McGill University, analyzed the Madsen paper, he made an important observation. Madsen’s own data showed that the rate of autism was always higher among the vaccinated when stratified by age of vaccination. For example, for those who were vaccinated at ages 25-35 months, they had a rate of autism of 26.9 per 100,000 person-years, but the stated rate of autism among the non-vaccinated was only 11.
Consequently, Dr. Suissa found the conclusion of an 8% protective effect to be “somewhat implausible” and “unusual,” indicating that the adjustments applied by Madsen and Hviid were “artificial” and concealed a link [20]. Dr. Suissa requested more detailed data from Madsen and Hviid, while noting that “one could be tempted to conclude” that the data actually showed an “association between MMR vaccination and the risk of autism” [20]. Dr. Suissa submitted his incisive analysis to the NEJM, but it was prompted rejected.
So what do you think that the Madsen study proves?
1.6. Conclusion
The Madsen paper is garbage science, but it is—truth be told—sophisticated garbage science. Tiny adjustments, unreliable data, and methodological issues lurked beneath the surface of the claim that there was no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. It is highly telling that this garbage paper has been cited favorably over 1,100 times by the pro-vaccine lobby.
Getting to the truth about vaccines is difficult. The vaccine industry employs highly educated and skilled statisticians whose job is to make hazards “disappear” and benefits magically “appear.” They have refined their methods over many years, and reverse engineering their methodological tricks can take days, weeks, or even longer. The mainstream media and health organizations, however, weaponize these garbage studies to create a lasting but false illusion of safety.
Indeed, immediately after the Madsen study was published, the mainstream media and vaccine lobby launched a well-coordinated misinformation campaign. Their goal was to falsely convince the global population that the study had vindicated the MMR vaccine. Here are some examples:
CNN: “The overwhelming evidence is that vaccines don’t cause autism. Most recently a study from Denmark showed in hundreds of thousands of children that there was no link between autism and MMR” [21].
ScienceNews: “Study exonerates childhood vaccine” [22].
NewScientist: “MMR and autism not linked, finds giant study” [23].
Los Angeles Times: “The study finally lays to rest the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism” [24].
The Guardian: “Study finds no autism link to MMR. … A baby’s immune system could cope with as many as 1,000 vaccines at once, if it were necessary” [25].
Dr. Edward Campion (editor of NEJM): “This careful and convincing study shows that there is no association between autism and MMR vaccination” [26].
The Madsen study is one of many that deserve this level of scrutiny. My new book, The New September 11th: Solving the COVID-19 Pandemic, provides extensive independent analysis of childhood and COVID vaccines. If you have questions about vaccines, you’ll likely find answers there. It is available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/8793987919
References
[1]. Asuka Koda. “What parents should know about autism and vaccines.” Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/25/health/autism-vaccines-parents-explainer-wellness
[2]. “Statement from Leading Medical, Health and Patient Advocacy Groups on CDC Autism Website Changes.” Available at: www.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2025/statement-from-leading-medical-health-and-patient-advocacy-groups-on-cdc-autism-website-changes/
[3]. Mawson A R., Jacob B. Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Study of Nine-Year-Old Children Enrolled in Medicaid. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. 2025 Jan 23; v6.2019-2025 https://publichealthpolicyjournal.c...-nine-year-old-children-enrolled-in-medicaid/
[4]. Madsen, Kreesten Meldgaard et al. “A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism.” The New England journal of medicine vol. 347,19 (2002): 1477-82. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa021134 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421889/
[5]. Autism and Vaccines https://web.archive.org/web/20241115045234/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html
[6]. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption https://web.archive.org/web/20210109125711/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
[7]. UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2003/07/21/UPI-Investigates-The-vaccine-conflict/44221058841736/
[8]. Leo loses appeal against UK’s most serious drug marketing breach as it’s censured for ‘extremely concerning matter’ https://www.fiercepharma.com/market...-drug-marketing-breach-its-censured-extremely [accessed May 2025].
[9]. Leo Pharma agrees to pay $437K to settle lawsuit over skin cancer risk from Picato https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/2...tle-lawsuit-over-skin-cancer-risk-from-picato [accessed May 2025].
[10]. AUTH/3267/10/19 – Employee v Leo Pharma Sponsorship of health professionals and staff training https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth32671019-employee-v-leo-pharma/ [accessed May 2025].
[11]. Statslig Årsrapport 2016 https://www.ssi.dk/-/media/arkiv/dk...r-og-nogletal/arsrapport-ssi-2016-endelig.pdf [accessed May 2025].
[12]. Statslig Årsrapport 2021 https://www.ssi.dk/-/media/arkiv/dk...rsrapport-2021-for-statens-serum-institut.pdf [accessed May 2025].
[13]. Karlstad, Øystein et al. “SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents.” JAMA cardiology vol. 7,6 (2022): 600-612. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0583 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35442390/ [accessed May 2025].
[14]. Opdateret covid-19-vaccine giver markant beskyttelse til ældre https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/...9vaccine-giver-markant-beskyttelse-til-aeldre [accessed May 2025].
[15]. Poukka, Eero et al. “COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Among Adolescents.” Pediatrics vol. 153,2 (2024): e2023062520. doi:10.1542/peds.2023-062520 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38196395/ [accessed May 2025].
[16]. Dag Berild, Jacob et al. “Analysis of Thromboembolic and Thrombocytopenic Events After the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and MRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in 3 Nordic Countries.” JAMA network open vol. 5,6 e2217375. 1 Jun. 2022, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.17375 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35699955/ [accessed May 2025].
[17]. Kæmpe studie har undersøgt millioner for bivirkninger efter covidvaccine – nu kender forskere sandheden https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2024...ter-covidvaccine-nu-kender-forskere-sandheden [accessed May 2025].
[18]. Nyt stort studie: Trygt for piger og drenge at få HPV-vaccination https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2024/trygt-for-piger-og-drenge-at-faa-hpv-vaccination [accessed May 2025].
[19]. Holt, Nanna et al. “Danish MMR vaccination coverage is considerably higher than reported.” Danish medical journal vol. 64,2 (2017): A5345. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28157059/ [accessed May 2025].
[20]. Goldman, Gary S. “Examples of Outcome Reporting Bias in Vaccine Studies: Illustrating How Perpetuating Medical Consensus Can Impede Progress in Public Health.” Cureus vol. 14,9 e29399. 21 Sep. 2022, doi:10.7759/cureus.29399 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36304385/ [accessed May 2025].
[21]. Autism and vaccines: Is there a link? https://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/parenting/12/10/cnna.autism.vaccines/index.html
[22]. Study exonerates childhood vaccine https://www.sciencenews.org/article/study-exonerates-childhood-vaccine
[23]. MMR and autism not linked, finds giant study https://www.newscientist.com/article/1915116-mmr-and-autism-not-linked-finds-giant-study/
[24]. Study Finds No Link Between MMR Vaccine and Autism https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-nov-07-sci-autism7-story.html
[25]. Study finds no autism link to MMR https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/07/health.society
[26]. Tanne JH. MMR vaccine is not linked with autism, says Danish study. BMJ. 2002 Nov 16;325(7373):1134. PMCID: PMC1124634.
Tweet
Continue reading...
[ H/T The Burning Platform ]
The article below by Danish researcher Soren Korsgaard examines the official narrative that vaccines are not a cause of autism. He focuses on the Madsen paper which the CDC cites as proof that vaccines do not cause autism. Korsgaard found that instead of comparing a vaccinated population with an unvaccinated one, the Madsen study compared a heavily vaccinated population with a slightly less heavily vaccinated one. In other words, the compared groups are likely to show the same results.
Korsgaard also found data problems and manipulation of the data. In other words, the study was rigged to produce a vaccine favorable result.
This is not surprising as the Madsen paper, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the work of two Big Pharma shills, Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen and Anders Hviid, whose conflicts of interest are large.
Madsen is chief development officer and executive VP of Leo Pharma, a pharmaceutical company with a history of misconduct problems.
Anders Hviid seems to have the role in Denmark that Tony Fauci had in the US. He has worked extensively with researchers financed by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Janssen.
Korsgaard concludes that the proof that vaccination does not cause autism is “hired science.”
Unfortunately, in the world today money buys whatever it wants. It buys democratic elections, which means elections are sold, not voted. It buys “expert witnesses” in tort and in criminal trials. It buys scientists’ testimony in public policy issues such as vaccines. So-called “conspiracy theorists” ask: “who rules us?” The obvious answer is money.
This has likely been true since the 12th century when Alain of Lille said: “Not Caesar now, but money, is all.”
Do Vaccines Cause Autism? Here is Everything That you Need to Know.
By Søren Roest Korsgaard, author of The New September 11th: Solving the COVID-19 Pandemic.
1.0 Introduction
One of the most polarizing issues about vaccines is whether they can cause autism. Formally known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the condition is a developmental disorder primarily characterized by deficits in communication and interaction as well as restricted, repetitive behaviors, interests, or activities.
Across the world, autism rates are climbing, if not skyrocketing. In the United States, the rate has increased from 1 in 150 in the year 2000 to 1 in 36 in 2022. Wider criteria and more screening contributed to these outcomes, but the lingering question remains: Did vaccines play a role at all? If vaccines are implicated, it is only a contributing factor because autism undoubtedly has multiple causes.
Why should you care? All citizens should familiarize themselves with the subject because it is likely that you, your children, or someone you know will be affected by autism. If you decline a vaccine for yourself or for your child, you will inevitably be called upon to defend that decision—and to produce evidence on the spot—by your pediatrician, by your spouse, by the school nurse, and by people who have never once questioned the vaccine schedule they are defending. This article will provide you with the needed ammunition to fight back.
1.1 The Mainstream Viewpoint
Despite studies being published with some frequency both for and against the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, mainstream organizations aggressively enforce the view that it is antiscience to conclude that vaccines may be implicated.
To counter a more moderate view on the subject initiated by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CNN published a one-sided hit piece. Dr. Alycia Halladay, the chief science officer for the Autism Science Foundation, alleged that vaccination “remains the number one studied environmental factor in autism, and there is no link whatsoever” and “vaccines have 1,000% been exonerated” [1]. Dr. Sean O’Leary further alleged that links between vaccines and autism have “been debunked many times” and that “it is considered settled science” [1]. Meanwhile, more than 60 “leading” mainstream health organizations issued a statement that scientists have for over 25 years “thoroughly” studied the hypothesis and “all have come to the same conclusion: Vaccines are not linked to autism” [2].
Are these assertions true? Just before the “leading” health organizations issued the statement, a study of 47,155 nine-year-old children showed that vaccination was associated with autism in a dose-dependent manner. Children with one vaccination visit had 1.7-fold higher odds of autism, but those who had received multiple vaccinations had a 4.4-fold increased risk compared to children with no vaccination records [3]. A dose-response relationship is a strong indicator of a causal association.
The mainstream organizations were therefore spreading misinformation when they stated that “all” studies have shown that vaccines and autism are unrelated. What they really meant was that the scientists they endorse (and usually sponsor) had found no link.
The deception is a good cause for further investigation.
1.2 The Mainstream Evidence
To support the claim that vaccines and autism are entirely unrelated, mainstream organizations cite epidemiological studies in “leading journals” as proof. The so-called Madsen paper, which centered on the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine, is the central piece of evidence, having been cited by more than 1,100 scientific publications [4]. In fact, as recently as July 2024, the CDC referenced it as part of the proof that “vaccines do not cause autism” [5].
The opposition—those who maintain that vaccines do cause autism—rely on their own studies, which are typically comparisons between vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children. These studies are virtually never published in so-called leading journals, but by much smaller publications that are independent of the vaccine industry. This means that few medical professionals will ever see the data.
It is obvious and should be common sense that if you want to know whether vaccines cause autism, you compare a completely vaccinated population with an unvaccinated population. The institutions that produce and promote vaccines have never published such a study; instead, they vindicate all vaccines on the basis of comparing a heavily-vaccinated population with a slightly-less-heavily-vaccinated one. This means that if the effect comes from aluminum adjuvants, which are used in nearly every vaccine, the cumulative antigen load, the compressed early schedule, or even interactions between products, mainstream study designs will mostly or entirely hide it.
While pro-vaccine doctors and others will reject out of hand research by critics that has found a positive relationship between vaccines and autism, they will be cornered if even their own highly biased pro-vaccine studies, upon re-examination, undermine their safety claims.
Therefore, I will now meticulously analyze the Madsen paper—the so-called proof that vaccines do not cause autism—to answer the following question: Did it in fact refute the hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism or did it in fact suggest the opposite?
1.3 Conflicts of Interest
As I show in my book, The New September 11th: Solving the COVID-19 Pandemic, the drug industry has corrupted the field of medicine. Public health agencies and pro-industry organizations cannot be trusted due to their conflicts of interest. Consequently, we should only trust medical products that have been rigorously tested, examined, and re-examined by independent, unbiased researchers.
In a highly recommended 2009 exposé, Dr. Marcia Angell, the former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, warned that the drug industry had corrupted the field of medicine. Angell’s conclusion, which she delivered without reservation, was stark:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” [6].
With this in mind, we should note that the Madsen paper was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which later underwrote the clinical data of the COVID vaccines. We should therefore remain vigilant and pay close attention to scientific misconduct.
Now, let’s focus on the paper’s two principal authors: Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen and Anders Hviid. Do they have conflicts of interest? They declared none but noted that their research was supported by grants from the CDC.
Long before the CDC showed us its true colors during the COVID pandemic, the United Press International (UPI) revealed that the organization functions as a vaccine company rather than as an unbiased organization advising the public, government, and healthcare workers. Members of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee were found to be on industry payrolls, sharing patents, and owning vaccine stocks. The CDC itself was deeply invested, collaborating with the industry on numerous development projects and licensing agreements under a 1980 law promoting such partnerships [7].
Looking closer: a background check reveals that Madsen has been heavily involved with the drug industry throughout his career. As of 2025, he is the Chief Development Officer and Executive Vice President of Leo Pharma, a drug company with a history of allegations of serious misconduct [8-10].
Anders Hviid is currently the Head of Department and Professor at the Department of Epidemiology Research of the Statens Serum Institute (SSI), a vaccine research center, producer (until 2017), and developer operating under the auspices of the Danish Ministry of Health. Judging by its financial reports from 2016 and 2021, SSI generates tens of millions of dollars in revenue every year from vaccines and other medical products [11-12]. Hviid is informally known as the Danish government’s vaccine czar.
Hviid has produced several papers on the mRNA vaccines with researchers bankrolled by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSK, Janssen, and various governments, proclaiming that they offer “significant health benefits” and “high protection” against COVID-19-related hospitalizations [13-16]. As recently as February 2024, he declared that his studies showed that serious side effects were “extremely rare” and that “people can safely continue to get vaccinated” [17]. As regards the HPV vaccine, his research “clearly shows” that it is “safe” [18]. Given his role in whitewashing these toxic vaccines, Hviid’s conclusion that autism is not caused by the MMR vaccine is not exactly inspiring confidence.
1.4. The Claims of Madsen et al.
Madsen and Hviid looked at every child born in Denmark between January 1991 and December 1998—537,303 children in total. Of those, 440,655 (82%) received the MMR vaccine.
Their conclusion: Those who had not received the MMR vaccine had an 8% higher risk of autism than those who had been vaccinated. They also claimed that the timing of vaccination did not matter.
Let’s look closer.
1.5. The Devil is in the Details
Madsen and Hviid worked with a large dataset from the Danish National Board of Health (DNBH), but their actual autism numbers were tiny: 53 cases among the non-vaccinated and 263 among the vaccinated.
With so few cases, even minor data errors can swing the results. Therefore, we must necessarily ask: Did they verify that the children diagnosed with autism were really vaccinated or not? Answer: No. They simply assumed the data was correct, and they went one step further and even treated every child as non-vaccinated until the DNBH database reflected otherwise.
In hindsight, were these sound choices? Answer: No. A 2017 paper in the Danish Medical Journal analyzed DNBH records and discovered a major discrepancy: 55% of children registered as non-MMR-vaccinated had actually been vaccinated [19]. So, the data was corrupted. Consequently, the Madsen study was strongly biased in favor of finding no difference between the two groups or a smaller difference than truly exists.
There is more. More than a third of the children were tracked long enough to receive the vaccination—but the study ended before the age at which autism is usually diagnosed. This flaw can quietly hide a real effect and make it look like there is none. Madsen tried to address this issue in part by categorizing the vaccinated children by the year they received the injection. Nevertheless, the unadjusted numbers for each year showed that the rate of autism was higher among the vaccinated.
This is a surprising result if there is truly no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. As previously mentioned, the supposedly non-vaccinated group in the study was not clean: many of them had been MMR vaccinated. The misclassification has the mathematical effect of blurring the contrast between the two groups and pushing the numbers toward “no difference.” So any elevated risk will likely be higher in real life.
Looking closer at the breakdown by year of vaccination, there was a large and unexplained increase in autism diagnoses among the vaccinated, which Madsen and Hviid never addressed. For example, the rate sharply increased from 12.3 to 20.2 per 100,000 person-years between those vaccinated in 1993-1994 and 1995-1996.
And there is a deeper problem. If the MMR vaccine causes autism, one must investigate the onset of disease, and not merely when the diagnosis was recorded. The reason is obvious: Diagnosis may occur years after disease onset. So, for example, if a child developed vaccine-induced autism at 18-24 months but was not diagnosed until years later, it would not be captured by the study. Madsen and Hviid admitted that they had no “information on when the first autistic symptoms were noted,” and “no information on whether the children with autism had regression,” even though this is the specific form that has been claimed to be associated with vaccination [4].
In the end, despite the data being strongly biased in favor of finding no association, it showed a 45% higher risk of autism among the MMR-vaccinated. A fact never mentioned in the paper. Madsen and Hviid responded by “adjusting” all of the data, which completely flipped the 45% higher risk into an 8% protective effect. Can we interrogate the adjustments and verify their scientific justification? The answer is no. None of the calculations—much less the underlying data—were shown in the paper or provided elsewhere. Requests for the raw data have been rejected.
When Dr. Samy Suissa, a professor in the Departments of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Medicine at McGill University, analyzed the Madsen paper, he made an important observation. Madsen’s own data showed that the rate of autism was always higher among the vaccinated when stratified by age of vaccination. For example, for those who were vaccinated at ages 25-35 months, they had a rate of autism of 26.9 per 100,000 person-years, but the stated rate of autism among the non-vaccinated was only 11.
Consequently, Dr. Suissa found the conclusion of an 8% protective effect to be “somewhat implausible” and “unusual,” indicating that the adjustments applied by Madsen and Hviid were “artificial” and concealed a link [20]. Dr. Suissa requested more detailed data from Madsen and Hviid, while noting that “one could be tempted to conclude” that the data actually showed an “association between MMR vaccination and the risk of autism” [20]. Dr. Suissa submitted his incisive analysis to the NEJM, but it was prompted rejected.
So what do you think that the Madsen study proves?
1.6. Conclusion
The Madsen paper is garbage science, but it is—truth be told—sophisticated garbage science. Tiny adjustments, unreliable data, and methodological issues lurked beneath the surface of the claim that there was no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. It is highly telling that this garbage paper has been cited favorably over 1,100 times by the pro-vaccine lobby.
Getting to the truth about vaccines is difficult. The vaccine industry employs highly educated and skilled statisticians whose job is to make hazards “disappear” and benefits magically “appear.” They have refined their methods over many years, and reverse engineering their methodological tricks can take days, weeks, or even longer. The mainstream media and health organizations, however, weaponize these garbage studies to create a lasting but false illusion of safety.
Indeed, immediately after the Madsen study was published, the mainstream media and vaccine lobby launched a well-coordinated misinformation campaign. Their goal was to falsely convince the global population that the study had vindicated the MMR vaccine. Here are some examples:
CNN: “The overwhelming evidence is that vaccines don’t cause autism. Most recently a study from Denmark showed in hundreds of thousands of children that there was no link between autism and MMR” [21].
ScienceNews: “Study exonerates childhood vaccine” [22].
NewScientist: “MMR and autism not linked, finds giant study” [23].
Los Angeles Times: “The study finally lays to rest the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism” [24].
The Guardian: “Study finds no autism link to MMR. … A baby’s immune system could cope with as many as 1,000 vaccines at once, if it were necessary” [25].
Dr. Edward Campion (editor of NEJM): “This careful and convincing study shows that there is no association between autism and MMR vaccination” [26].
The Madsen study is one of many that deserve this level of scrutiny. My new book, The New September 11th: Solving the COVID-19 Pandemic, provides extensive independent analysis of childhood and COVID vaccines. If you have questions about vaccines, you’ll likely find answers there. It is available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/8793987919
References
[1]. Asuka Koda. “What parents should know about autism and vaccines.” Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/25/health/autism-vaccines-parents-explainer-wellness
[2]. “Statement from Leading Medical, Health and Patient Advocacy Groups on CDC Autism Website Changes.” Available at: www.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2025/statement-from-leading-medical-health-and-patient-advocacy-groups-on-cdc-autism-website-changes/
[3]. Mawson A R., Jacob B. Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Study of Nine-Year-Old Children Enrolled in Medicaid. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. 2025 Jan 23; v6.2019-2025 https://publichealthpolicyjournal.c...-nine-year-old-children-enrolled-in-medicaid/
[4]. Madsen, Kreesten Meldgaard et al. “A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism.” The New England journal of medicine vol. 347,19 (2002): 1477-82. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa021134 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421889/
[5]. Autism and Vaccines https://web.archive.org/web/20241115045234/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html
[6]. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption https://web.archive.org/web/20210109125711/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
[7]. UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2003/07/21/UPI-Investigates-The-vaccine-conflict/44221058841736/
[8]. Leo loses appeal against UK’s most serious drug marketing breach as it’s censured for ‘extremely concerning matter’ https://www.fiercepharma.com/market...-drug-marketing-breach-its-censured-extremely [accessed May 2025].
[9]. Leo Pharma agrees to pay $437K to settle lawsuit over skin cancer risk from Picato https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/2...tle-lawsuit-over-skin-cancer-risk-from-picato [accessed May 2025].
[10]. AUTH/3267/10/19 – Employee v Leo Pharma Sponsorship of health professionals and staff training https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth32671019-employee-v-leo-pharma/ [accessed May 2025].
[11]. Statslig Årsrapport 2016 https://www.ssi.dk/-/media/arkiv/dk...r-og-nogletal/arsrapport-ssi-2016-endelig.pdf [accessed May 2025].
[12]. Statslig Årsrapport 2021 https://www.ssi.dk/-/media/arkiv/dk...rsrapport-2021-for-statens-serum-institut.pdf [accessed May 2025].
[13]. Karlstad, Øystein et al. “SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents.” JAMA cardiology vol. 7,6 (2022): 600-612. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0583 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35442390/ [accessed May 2025].
[14]. Opdateret covid-19-vaccine giver markant beskyttelse til ældre https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/...9vaccine-giver-markant-beskyttelse-til-aeldre [accessed May 2025].
[15]. Poukka, Eero et al. “COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Among Adolescents.” Pediatrics vol. 153,2 (2024): e2023062520. doi:10.1542/peds.2023-062520 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38196395/ [accessed May 2025].
[16]. Dag Berild, Jacob et al. “Analysis of Thromboembolic and Thrombocytopenic Events After the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and MRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in 3 Nordic Countries.” JAMA network open vol. 5,6 e2217375. 1 Jun. 2022, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.17375 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35699955/ [accessed May 2025].
[17]. Kæmpe studie har undersøgt millioner for bivirkninger efter covidvaccine – nu kender forskere sandheden https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2024...ter-covidvaccine-nu-kender-forskere-sandheden [accessed May 2025].
[18]. Nyt stort studie: Trygt for piger og drenge at få HPV-vaccination https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2024/trygt-for-piger-og-drenge-at-faa-hpv-vaccination [accessed May 2025].
[19]. Holt, Nanna et al. “Danish MMR vaccination coverage is considerably higher than reported.” Danish medical journal vol. 64,2 (2017): A5345. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28157059/ [accessed May 2025].
[20]. Goldman, Gary S. “Examples of Outcome Reporting Bias in Vaccine Studies: Illustrating How Perpetuating Medical Consensus Can Impede Progress in Public Health.” Cureus vol. 14,9 e29399. 21 Sep. 2022, doi:10.7759/cureus.29399 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36304385/ [accessed May 2025].
[21]. Autism and vaccines: Is there a link? https://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/parenting/12/10/cnna.autism.vaccines/index.html
[22]. Study exonerates childhood vaccine https://www.sciencenews.org/article/study-exonerates-childhood-vaccine
[23]. MMR and autism not linked, finds giant study https://www.newscientist.com/article/1915116-mmr-and-autism-not-linked-finds-giant-study/
[24]. Study Finds No Link Between MMR Vaccine and Autism https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-nov-07-sci-autism7-story.html
[25]. Study finds no autism link to MMR https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/07/health.society
[26]. Tanne JH. MMR vaccine is not linked with autism, says Danish study. BMJ. 2002 Nov 16;325(7373):1134. PMCID: PMC1124634.
Tweet
Continue reading...
[ H/T The Burning Platform ]
