Quick change of plans for tonight: Dr. Meryl Nass is sick and unfortunately won’t be able to join us.
So I just checked with Dr. Robert Malone, and he is in!
We have plenty to talk about, and I suspect this will be a very interesting show.
Join us tonight at 7pm ET / 4pm PT by clicking the graphic above.
See you soon,
Steve
I had a nice SMS conversation with Alex Berenson last night.
The short story is:
Alex cites the studies that say vaccines don’t cause autism — and ignores the ones that say they do.
When I pointed out that real-world data isn’t consistent what those studies claim, he had no answer. He wouldn’t engage. Silence.
When I asked him to spend sixty seconds posting a survey on X — a survey that would let families tell us, in their own words, what actually happened to their kids — he refused.
His exact words: “The survey is worthless. It proves nothing.”
Think about that.
He never looked at the survey. He never looked at the data collected to date. He didn’t even ask to see it.
Am I supposed to believe that Alex is so brilliant he can predict the results of a survey he hasn’t seen?
I was a paying subscriber. Not anymore. I don’t fund people who refuse to engage with data.
That’s not science. That’s not curiosity. That’s not even intellectual honesty.
Scientists seek truth. They collect data. They follow the evidence wherever it leads — even when it makes them uncomfortable.
Alex just showed us exactly what he is: someone who’s already decided he’s right, and has no interest in being proven wrong.
I built a tool to find the truth. He built a wall to hide from it.
I’m willing to be wrong. He’s not willing to find out.
We need to find what’s causing autism. The more we inquire, the better our chance of finding the cause.
Alex Berenson was given an opportunity to help collect data that might reveal something helpful to finding the cause of autism. He refused.
A recent Rasmussen survey showed that 34% of US households reported having a kid on the spectrum. That’s non-trivial. That’s millions of families.
So if we asked you to take sixty seconds to help collect data that might shed light on the problem — what would you do? Refuse because you already know the answer?
After Alex cited studies claiming no relationship with vaccines, I asked him to answer the following observations — each of which is at odds with his beliefs. He answered none of them.
The asymmetry question. If autism is random, it should happen at the same rate just before a vaccine visit as after. Former pediatrician Doug Hulstedt is one of the few pediatricians who actually tracked statistics in his practice, which specialized in autism. He had 46 cases of sudden-onset autism across 23 years. All 46 happened within two weeks after a vaccination. Not before. All after. And the claim that parents would never tell a pediatrician about autism occurring before a visit is sheer fabrication. That’s not what any of the autism parents I asked did. Who are these parents who never tell the pediatrician — and where the pediatrician never notices on the next visit? Come on.
The unvaccinated vs. vaccinated Amish question. Same genes. Same environment. Same food. Same water. Same everything. The only difference: only vaccinated Amish kids get autism. Why? I’ve been asking for over a year now, and nobody in the Amish community is aware of an unvaccinated Amish child with autism — they only know vaccinated Amish kids with autism.
The under-vaccinated clinic question. Pediatric clinics that under-vaccinate have lower autism rates than their peers in the same area who follow the full CDC schedule. Every single one. I personally know the owner of one such clinic that severely under-vaccinates: zero autism in 25 years across over 6,000 kids born into the practice. We have the data from the practice obtained under a BAA. If vaccines don’t cause autism, what do all these under-vaccinating clinics have in common — other than under-vaccination?
All Alex had to do was make a post like the ones that Sharyl Attkisson, Chris Martenson, Lara Logan, Rob Schneider, and others have done.
If Alex is correct, we’d see it in the data in under 24 hours.
Alex refused.
The autism survey is simply the first step of a subsequent study process that includes using only carefully curated data sources — from autism diagnosis and treatment clinics — greater engagement with responders, pre-registered analysis protocols, verification of dates with contemporaneous evidence, and so on.
But to get the data that justifies the time and expense of a comprehensive study, you start modestly and ramp up from there.
That’s how science actually works. You don’t launch a multi-million-dollar investigation on a hunch. You collect preliminary data, see if there’s something worth pursuing, then build on it.
My survey is the first domino. Alex doesn’t want that first domino to fall.
Before Alex writes his response, let me address what he’ll almost certainly say:
“Your survey isn’t scientific.”
It is. And here’s why.
Science is about seeking truth.
And that means considering all the evidence — not just the studies that agree with you. As Norman Doidge’s article points out, when you exclude inconvenient data, you’re not doing science. You’re doing advocacy.
A survey like the one I created is systematic data collection — structured questions, documented responses, and a clear methodology. That’s not “unscientific.” That’s the foundation of science.
Every epidemiological study ever conducted started the same way: someone asked a question, collected data, and looked at what it said.
And this survey goes further than most. It doesn’t just ask families to make a claim. It asks whether they have contemporaneous documentation — records written at the time, not recalled years later. And it asks whether they’re willing to be contacted to verify what they reported.
That’s not a poll. That’s a case series with a chain of evidence attached. It’s the first step in a more comprehensive study — and it’s built to survive scrutiny.
And the more different audiences the survey targets, the more we can do subgroup analyses to quantify the uncertainty caused by selection bias.
If Alex thinks measuring bias is worthless, then he doesn’t understand what science is.
The difference between Alex and me: I’m collecting data to find the truth. He’s dismissing data he hasn’t even looked at.
This opened my eyes.
Alex himself is no better than the people he writes about. Challenge his beliefs and he refuses to engage in a dialogue to explain the data — or volunteer to collect the data that would show who’s right.
He demands evidence from everyone else. He just won’t allow any that might contradict him.
Our friend, Dr. Meryl Nass, joins me on VSRF Live tonight, and the Maine medical board may have a much bigger problem than they expected!
Dr. Nass has practiced medicine in Maine since 1997. She’s an expert on anthrax and biological warfare, has testified before Congress six times, and had no disciplinary history before the COVID era. Then she challenged the medical establishment’s COVID narrative.
In January 2022, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine suspended her license and ordered her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation amid controversy over her COVID-era prescribing and public statements.
Now the tables may be turning.
A Maine court previously threw out that order as “arbitrary and capricious.” And on August 20, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker allowed a central part of her federal civil-rights lawsuit against individual Board members to move forward.
The language in his ruling is remarkable. Walker described the psychological-evaluation order, based on Nass’s allegations, as “based on no evidence or process” and wrote that such an action “simply ought not occur, ever.” He even raised the possibility that the Board was “making an example out of Dr. Nass.”
Tonight, Meryl and I will talk about what happened, what this ruling means, and where the case goes from here. But this is bigger than one doctor: How much power should a medical board have to punish a physician for challenging medical orthodoxy—and what happens when the people doing the disciplining are forced to answer for their own conduct?
I look forward to this conversation, and hope to see you there. Bring a friend.
Steve
The Trump administration sent Congress its civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Asked what the deal permits, the president wrote: There will be no enrichment of material. His own Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, has said the opposite. The agreement gives Riyadh a pathway to enrich uranium on its own soil, and in doing so […]
The death of Palestinian artist Sliman Anis Mansour stirred powerful memories. He passed away at Al-Makassed Hospital in occupied East Jerusalem on August 24, at the age of 79, bringing to a close a legacy that cannot truly be described, but only experienced. His life almost exactly spanned the age of the Palestinian Nakba. He […]
The jury took just two hours. Tony Greenstein – Jewish socialist, anti-Zionist – had faced fourteen years under the Terrorism Act for three social media posts and a blog article opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The Crown called it “inviting support for Hamas.” The jury called it something else. Section 12 of the Terrorism Act […]
American bombs are now falling on Tehran, and while Donald Trump ultimately pulled the trigger, administrations before him—Republican and Democrat alike—constructed the gun, and even loaded it. In 1995, US president Bill Clinton issued executive orders banning US investment tied to Iran’s petroleum sector and, soon after, most US trade with and investment in Iran. […]
While many mainstream commentators blanch at the characterization of the United States as an empire, the hard data show that it is today impossible to seriously dispute. The U.S. military operates between 750 and 800 bases around the world, located in around 80 foreign countries and territories. Because there is no fixed or standard definition […]
There is a point in the decline of republics when the problem is no longer that government breaks its own laws. Governments will always behave unlawfully. The deeper problem comes when the constitutional machinery designed to prevent those acts stops functioning — when spending becomes detached from arithmetic, presidential power becomes detached from law, and […]
Reprinted with permission from Trita Parsi’s Substack. A final deal between the United States and Iran is slipping further out of reach. Since the Memorandum of Understanding collapsed in July, the prospects for reviving it have deteriorated by the day. While Tehran publicly demands a return to the MOU, Trump’s current position is that even […]