Nicolas Hulscher walks through the vaccine-injury research his foundation keeps producing, persistence years out, a cancer signal in the CDC's own data, and the childhood schedule, plus the peer review cartel that keeps it all out of the journals that count.
This has been a recurring theme on this show for five years, and it is not getting easier to dismiss. I had Nicolas Hulscher on to walk through the research he and the McCullough Foundation keep producing on vaccine injury, the COVID shots and the childhood schedule both, and the picture he laid out is exactly the one the government, the pharmaceutical industry, and the journals those companies fund do not want the average person to see.
I want to be straight about where I stand, because pretending to be a neutral referee on this would be its own kind of lie. I am a father of three young kids. The childhood schedule is not an abstraction in my house, and the question of whether it is driving the autism epidemic has gone, in my read, from fringe to fairly obvious. The deeper I get into this, and the more people like Hulscher I talk to who are actually doing the work, the harder it is to land anywhere other than the conclusion that the institutions built to look after our health are doing something closer to the opposite.
That is the throughline that ties this to everything else we cover here. The fiat system rots, and the institutions stacked on top of it, the central banks, the legacy press, the regulatory state, the public health bureaucracy, rot with it. They were supposed to be the neutral arbiters. They turned out to have a side. The peer review cartel Hulscher describes is just that pattern showing up in medicine, and it is worth understanding in detail, because the mechanism is the story.
The case Hulscher opened with is the single most-tested vaccine-injury patient on record, a man who went through more than 200 lab and imaging tests, saw more than 200 specialists, and visited the ER around 40 times with severe chest pain after three Pfizer doses. Everything was ruled out except the obvious. His team then shipped tissue and blood to a lab in Germany, one of the only places equipped to look, and three and a half years after his last shot they were still finding the shot in him: circulating Pfizer mRNA, plasmid DNA from the manufacturing process embedded in his skin, the SV40 segment and the spike-encoding region of those plasmids, and spike protein itself in his skin and blood. Serial testing, months apart, confirmed it each time. Infection was ruled out.
That single phrase, the SV40 segment, is the one to sit with, because SV40 is a known cancer promoter and it was never supposed to be in the product at all. From there Hulscher walked into the part that should stop you cold: a 31-year-old woman who developed stage-four bladder cancer after three doses, where his team found the vaccine's spike-encoding DNA fused directly into her chromosome 19, in a transcriptionally active region you never want foreign DNA landing in. Genomic integration, documented in a human being. The mechanism he describes for how these shots accelerate cancer is straightforward and ugly: the mRNA downregulates the T cells your immune system uses to keep stray cancer cells in check, and it suppresses tumor-suppressor genes like p53 and BRCA. Take the brakes off, and the cancers a healthy body would have caught and contained start running.
This is where the population data comes in, and where the cartel piece starts to matter. Hulscher's number is more than 136,000 excess US cancer deaths since 2021, drawn from the CDC's own WONDER database, not a model he built. Two studies out of South Korea and Italy, 8.7 million people between them, compared vaccinated to unvaccinated populations and found elevated risk across seven major cancers, colorectal, bladder, breast, prostate, thyroid, gastric, with both the mRNA and the viral-vector platforms showing the signal. He calls these shots one of the largest carcinogenic exposures in history, and the part that makes that more than a slogan is that the data backing it is sitting in government systems while the agencies that run those systems decline to look.
It does not stop at cancer. He points to the largest study ever run on vaccines and dementia, 13 million people, which found adults who received flu, pneumococcal, and shingles shots carried a 38% higher risk of dementia and a 50% higher risk of Alzheimer's, dose-dependent, with the risk persisting about a decade. Dose dependency is the tell he keeps coming back to, because more doses producing more harm is the fingerprint of an actual causal relationship rather than a coincidence.
This is the section I have the most personal stake in, and it is the one I have watched myself move on. Start with the fact Hulscher leads with: not one of the currently recommended childhood vaccines was licensed on the basis of a long-term, double-blind, saline-placebo-controlled trial. Not one. They were tested against other vaccines that themselves were never placebo-tested. So when a pediatrician tells you the schedule is "safe and tested," the honest version is that it was never tested against nothing, which is the only test that can actually surface harm.
Then the analysis. His foundation spent months on an 82-page, 300-plus-reference review of the causes of autism, and of the 136 relevant studies, 107 found a positive link between vaccines and neurodevelopmental harm. The studies waved around to deny the link, he points out, share one feature: not one of them has an unvaccinated control group. The 13 studies that do make that comparison all land the same way, the vaccinated kids worse off across autism, ADHD, tics, speech delays, learning disabilities, autoimmune conditions, asthma, the whole list. The historical curve is the kicker: dosing was flat until 1986, the year the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act handed the manufacturers liability protection, and from there the schedule climbed toward 72 doses by age 18 while autism climbed right alongside it. Take away the lawsuits and you take away the incentive to be careful.
The harder data is the mortality data. Querying VAERS, the government's own adverse-event system, Hulscher found more than 300 MMR and MMRV infant and toddler death reports, most within two weeks of the shot, presenting as SIDS, cardiac arrest, seizures, and encephalitis. Set against seven measles deaths in the US since 1995, that is roughly 2,600% more death reports from the vaccine than from the disease, in a system that, by the government's own admission, captures well under 1% of real events. A separate analysis he cites found vaccinated two-month-olds had 68% higher odds of dying the following month than unvaccinated ones. His line, and it is hard to argue with the logic of it, is that a vaccine should never kill more than the disease it targets.
So why have you not read any of this in The Lancet? That is the actual subject of the episode, and it is the part that travels even if you are skeptical of every number above. Hulscher's own systematic review of post-vaccination autopsies, which concluded the vaccine caused death in 73.9% of the cases examined, was published in Forensic Science International, became the single most-accessed research paper in the world, and was retracted within about a week. Pulled from a preprint server inside a day, published, then withdrawn after the fact, before being peer-reviewed and republished elsewhere. He does not read that as quality control. He reads it as a cartel doing its job.
His structural claim is precise. A handful of conglomerate publishers, Elsevier, Sage, the houses behind The Lancet and JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, sit on top of the journals that decide what counts as real medicine. A large share of the editors and peer reviewers at those journals take money from the pharmaceutical companies whose products they are evaluating, and the editors make the final call. You will not find a single paper critical of the shots in the top journals, he says, because the people gatekeeping them are paid by the manufacturers. When something critical does slip through a friendlier journal under the same corporate umbrella, leadership calls down and it gets retracted. He wants the major publishers investigated under RICO, the racketeering statute, on the theory that coordinated suppression of safety data to protect profit is an organized enterprise, not a series of independent editorial judgments.
The reason this is no longer a fringe complaint is that the establishment is now fighting about it in the open. In 2025 the Department of Justice sent letters to several major medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine among them, questioning their editorial independence and whether they fairly represent competing science. The journals called it harassment. You can decide for yourself whether the state leaning on publishers is a cure or a different disease, but the underlying question, whether the institutions that certify medical truth are captured, has moved from something only dissidents asked to something the government and the journals are now litigating directly. The "conspiracy theory" framing does not survive that.
A lot of us were genuinely hopeful when RFK got in, that the MAHA-MAGA combination would finally take a wrecking ball to the perverse incentives running through the FDA, the CDC, and the journal complex. The honest read from Hulscher is that it has been slow and disappointing. There were wins, the recommended childhood schedule was trimmed from roughly 80 doses toward 30, the COVID recommendation was narrowed. But six-month-olds can still get the COVID shot under the "high risk" carve-out, the FDA's own scientists were overruled on a black-box warning, and the current political calculus, as midterms approach, appears to be to stop talking about vaccines altogether and pivot to food. Politics over public health, again.
Which is why his closing advice is not "wait for the agencies to fix it." It is the opposite. Share the research inside your own networks, because the mainstream press, Fox included, will not touch it while it runs pharmaceutical ads. Call your representatives, because some of them still answer to their constituents. And stop being afraid of what other people will think of you for saying any of this out loud. The thing that actually ends the program is non-compliance, the next booster you skip, the next mandate you refuse. That is the same posture that runs through everything on this show. You do not fix a captured institution by asking it nicely to stop. You route around it, and you stop handing it your consent.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, is an epidemiologist and administrator at the McCullough Foundation in Dallas, founded by cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough. He holds a Bachelor of Science from Oakland University and a Master of Public Health in epidemiology from the University of Michigan, and has co-authored more than 20 papers on COVID-19 vaccine injury, viral biology, and the determinants of autism. His foundation's work, and the retractions it keeps running into, are the subject of this conversation.
