Rising Autism Rates clearly correspond to Vaccines with Aluminum Added

Many thanks to my datamigo Liz for her continued brilliance and back-and-forthing.

Here’s the original chart that I produced yesterday. In a few words, the two trajectories represent the autism rates as per CDC data from 1970-2025 (in red), and the cumulative number of shots that one would expect to have been injected with per year from 1920-2025 (in blue).

Notes: The CDC autism case data is plotted by surveillance year: when the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network collects data on 8-year-old children (e.g., 2022 surveillance year for children born in 2014). The on-market vaccine (cumulative cases) data represents the cumulative number of vaccine doses introduced from 1923 to 2024, including both pediatric and adult vaccines.

Since this chart is comparing vaccines with autism rates, I decided to focus on the specific vaccines used in children that contain aluminum adjuvants. The idea is to determine whether or not there is a strong correlation between the vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvants and the autism rates since aluminum may be the culprit (or a partial culprit) in terms of neurotoxic effects 1234567 in infants/children that may be causing autism.

Background information

The raw data came from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (it’s ironic that the acronym is CHOP – this is Paul Offit’s realm, by the way and I like that because, well, it’s their data), Immunize.org, and CDC sources. My vaccine list and cumulative estimates are good approximations. In terms of limitations, I acknowledge that there’s no real way to know how many injections someone has actually received over the years, but it’s likely that I am undercounting some, if anything. The metrics assume a standardized schedule only for children, but of course vaccine recommendations will vary according to health status and era, so my data points might not be perfect. Products may get replaced as time goes on or counts may change (fewer “recommended doses” for example), and there are also some people that might not get vaccinated at all, while others might be very adherent. This is a work-in-progress and as I hone my focus, the numbers may get updated.

Table 1 shows the “Vaccine” (each containing an aluminum adjuvant) and the “Year” that they were available for market use. “Shots” represents how many injections would be expected to be administered per person per year. “Total Shots” represents the cumulative number of injections a person would have received up to a given year. As an example, if it was 2005 and you were born in 1980, you might have been injected up to 40 times with any one of 13 vaccines.8 The “Aluminum” column indicates whether or not the vaccine contains an aluminum adjuvant (in this case, all “Yes”), and the last two columns indicate whether or not the product is for children less than 12 years-old or for adults only (in this case, all “No”), respectively.

Below is the ameliorated table and chart where only vaccines that have aluminum adjuvants (not adult-only) are plotted against autism combined prevalence of autism/1,000 children rates.

Here is the accompanying ameliorated chart.

By the way, the Pearson correlation coefficient (R=0.8234) was calculated using the vaccine and autism data by year matching, so it is based on 15 data points. The value of R=0.8234 indicates a high correlation, just above the “strong” threshold suggesting a robust linear relationship where one variable explains a significant portion of the variance in the other.

You know what might be even more interesting than the strong correlation? The “inflection point”9 that happens in both the vaccine and autism data.

Something happened in 1996.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 is a U.S. federal law that is “meant to address concerns about vaccine safety and compensate individuals harmed by vaccines”.10 But let’s face it, the main thing it does is make vaccines liability-free. Since the manufacturers and health care providers aren’t liable if and when their vaccines cause harm, then why wouldn’t the flood gates simply open with regard to new products coming onto the market? Otherwise put: Why wouldn’t greedy creeps try to make money off of damaging children irreparably? Lookin’ at you, SW. Hey, that rhymes!

Since it takes ~10 years to get a vaccine to market (it is meant to anyway! cough, cough, COVID, cough, cough), there would be a potential lag in an increase in new products on the market of 10 years. In graph-speak, this would mean that we would see an uptick around 1996 if this scenario is correct.

Hey, that’s exactly where the “inflection point” is. It must be coincidence.