Charles Richet demonstrated in 1901 that injection of foreign proteins sensitizes rather than protects, with each subsequent exposure producing a larger response. He won the 1913 Nobel Prize for the finding. The mechanism was then buried by an industry that could not survive its implications.
A mouse in a federal document
A mouse carries a genetic variant in SHANK3. On its own, the variant produces no observable behavioural change. The mouse looks and acts like any other mouse. Researchers then deliver a single systemic immune challenge. The mouse’s behaviour changes. Measurable synaptic and neuroinflammatory changes accompany the shift. The behavioural change is partially reversible when the researchers administer anti-inflammatory treatment. The effect is selective, sparing some behavioural domains and varying by sex.
This finding sits on pages 56-57 of the 2026-2028 IACC Strategic Plan, working draft dated July 17, 2026, cited by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee as scientific rationale for treating neurodevelopmental regression as a national priority.¹
The document runs 336 pages. Across those 336 pages the word “vaccine” appears zero times. The word “aluminum” appears zero times. The word “injection” appears zero times. So do “adjuvant,” “immunization,” “thimerosal,” and “mercury.” A federal Strategic Plan on autism, produced in 2026, presents the reader with a mouse whose genetic susceptibility is unmasked by a single injected challenge and does not once name the injected challenges the federal government schedules and delivers to genetically variable two-year-olds.
The question is not whether the omission occurred. The counts confirm it. The question is how.
(…)
How to Explain It to a Six-Year-Old
Imagine a house where a lamp keeps breaking. Nobody can figure out why.
The grown-ups sit down and write a book about it. The book is 336 pages long. They write about the sunlight making the lamp warm. They write about the cat brushing against the cord. They write about the old wiring in the walls. They write about how sometimes lamps just break because lamps are delicate things.
They use big words. They draw pictures of how a lightbulb works. They think about it very carefully.
But they never write about the ball that flies through the room every Saturday when the kids play. Everyone in the house knows about the ball. Everyone has seen it hit the lamp. The book even talks about how sometimes toys hit things. But the book does not say the word “ball.”
At the end of the 336 pages, the grown-ups say they still don’t know why the lamp keeps breaking. They say they need to study it more. They say they need more money to study it more. They say they will spend the next three years studying it more.
They never write the word “ball.”
The government’s book about autism was written that way too.
1) Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. IACC Strategic Plan 2026-2028: A New Federal Framework for Autism. Working Draft, July 17, 2026, pp. 56-57. [Hereafter IACC Plan.]
Excerpts from an essay on the 2026-2028 IACC strategic plan and the word missing from all 336 pages. Read the full article on Lies are Unbekoming.