Dr. Doug Hulstedt, a highly-rated pediatrician with over 35 years of experience, has revealed a startling pattern in his case studies of child patients diagnosed with “rapid-onset” autism.

According to Hulstedt, every single one of the dozens of cases of rapid-onset autism he tracked occurred within 14 days of a vaccination. 

Dr. Hulstedt reached this conclusion by carefully reviewing the medical histories of his patients and matching vaccination records to the timing of parents’ first observations of autism symptoms.

The consistency of this pattern, Hulstedt argues, cannot be ignored and challenges the CDC’s longstanding denial of a vaccine-autism connection.

Dr. Hulstedt is not alone. Another pediatrician, who has chosen to remain anonymous while she manually verifies her electronic medical records, has reported seeing a similar trend.

Dr. Doug Hulstedt reviewed the medical histories of his patients and matching vaccination records to the timing of parents’ first observations of autism symptoms.

In her practice, she estimates around 180 children developed rapid-onset autism, with a significant majority experiencing their first symptoms within two weeks of a vaccination.

Despite anecdotal evidence piling up, critics say the lack of tracking within electronic medical record (EMR) systems makes such patterns harder to identify. This oversight, they argue, is deliberate—designed to prevent connections from being drawn.

When asked to explain why autism cases frequently emerge shortly after vaccination, the CDC deflects, pointing to studies that dismiss any link.

However, critics like Dr. Hulstedt argue these studies intentionally avoid analyzing cases based on the timing of symptom onset. Such “timing-blind” methodologies fail to detect signals that might otherwise reveal cause-and-effect relationships.

In practices where parents have opted out of vaccinations altogether, the contrast is stark. One large California pediatric clinic serving thousands of unvaccinated children over 25 years has reported zero cases of autism among its patients.

Why isn’t this data being thoroughly investigated?

Short answer: the medical establishment is defending vaccine safety and refusing to openly confront evidence that might suggest otherwise. This approach stems from a mix of institutional inertia, liability concerns, and a reluctance to confront highly inconvenient findings.

They know they can count on the mainstream media to uphold the wall of silence, avoiding scrutiny and shielding inconvenient truths from public view.

Meanwhile, whistleblowers like Dr. Hulstedt and others are calling for transparency and accountability, urging the CDC and the medical community to take a closer look at the data rather than dismiss it outright.

When will society finally be ready to revisit vaccine safety studies with fresh eyes and updated methodologies?