12/14/2025
*Sigh* Probably a bit heavy for first thing on a Sunday, but this one’s been rattling around my jar all weekend. Grab a coffee.
The McCullough Foundation is back on its cooker nonsense, rolling out another disaster-movie headline dressed up as science. Big font. Big claims. Zero actual evidence. Just a Substack link, a lot of italics, and the usual implication that this time the truth has finally slipped past the gatekeepers.
The headline doing the rounds claims a “peer-reviewed reanalysis” of the Henry Ford Birth Cohort Study proves vaccinated children are sicker across all 22 chronic disease categories, including a frankly deranged “549% increase in autism.” If that number doesn’t immediately set off alarm bells, I’ve got some detox drops to sell you.
Here’s the problem... the Henry Ford study never claimed anything remotely like this. It wasn’t designed to compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids. It wasn’t randomised. It wasn’t a causality study. It was an observational cohort looking at healthcare utilisation and outcomes. Its own authors have repeatedly warned that anti-vaccine activists are abusing the dataset in ways it was never intended for.
What Hulscher is doing is taking observational data and forcing it to answer a question it cannot answer, then pretending the answer fell out naturally. It’s the epidemiological equivalent of using car-crash data to argue seatbelts cause injuries, because injured people are more likely to be wearing one. Technically you can run the numbers. Practically, you’ve just demonstrated you don’t understand what the numbers mean.
This is where it stops being incompetence and starts being strategy.. The complete failure to account for healthcare-seeking behaviour. Vaccinated children tend to have parents who take them to doctors. They get screened earlier. Their conditions are recorded. They exist in the data. Unvaccinated children, often raised by parents who distrust medicine, visit doctors less, get screened less, and are under-diagnosed. On paper, they look “healthier” because they’re invisible.
That’s not a mystery. That’s detection bias. It’s one of the first things taught in population health. Any competent epidemiologist would either adjust for it or explicitly state that without doing so, the analysis is invalid. Hulscher does neither, because the moment you correct for it, the entire narrative collapses. And with it, the entire business model.
The claim that vaccinated children are worse off across all 22 disease categories is another massive tell. Real biological harms don’t light up every outcome simultaneously. When everything is worse (cancer, autism, asthma, allergies, developmental conditions) it doesn’t point to a hidden toxin. It points to a systematic bias in how the data is being captured. Vaccination status here isn’t acting as a biological exposure. It’s acting as a proxy for parental behaviour and access to healthcare.
Which brings us to why the McCullough Foundation is worse than your average Rumble cooker. These people know this stuff. They understand confounding. They understand cohort limitations. They understand detection bias. This isn’t ignorance. It’s deliberate.
And Nicholas Hulscher’s role in this little ecosystem is painfully obvious. He’s the designated grenade-thrower for imbeciles. The bloke who says the things even McCullough knows are too stupid to attach his own name to. McCullough maintains a thin veneer of “respectability.” Nicholas lobs the idiot claims into the crowd. The foundation amplifies it while keeping just enough distance to shrug later and say, “Well, that was his interpretation.”
After the fear, after the outrage, after the claim that doctors are lying or helpless, comes the pitch. Detox protocols. Immune stacks. Mitochondrial support. Price tags that would make a cartel pause for breath.
Nicholas isn’t exposing a conspiracy. He’s not blowing the whistle. He’s just the twerp sent out to say the dumb bits loudly, rally the cookers and useful idiots, and keep the funnel flowing.
Anyways... Happy Sunday.
