By his own premise #2, vaccines prevent far more autism than they could ever cause. Here's his logic, run honestly: 1. Measles, mumps, and chickenpox cause encephalitis far more often than their vaccines do. Measles alone causes it in about 1 in 1,000 cases (CDC). 2. Encephalitis can cause autism. (His premise.) 3. Vaccines prevent these infections. Therefore, vaccines prevent far more autism than they could ever cause. And rubella doesn't even need the encephalitis step. Rubella caught during pregnancy is one of the best-documented prenatal environmental causes of autism, and the rubella vaccine prevents it. Any physician should know congenital rubella. It's the clearest case where we know a vaccine prevents autism. This isn't rocket science.

Here are 7 effortless ways to debunk a flat Earth with a local Sun and Moon circling above it, using little more than your own eyes and simple observations anyone can make. No advanced math. No advanced physics. No special education. No trusting NASA, governments, scientists, or any other authority. Flerfs don’t even have to read much - it’s narrated, with simple graphics showing exactly what is happening and why. Each of these seven observations independently creates a problem the flat-Earth model cannot solve. Put them all together and these are the final nails in an already closed flat-Earth coffin. I’m sure the replies will contain the usual memes, cognitive dissonance, and arguments we’ve all heard a thousand times before. And yes, somebody will inevitably type the word “perspective” as though nobody has ever considered it. The problem is that perspective is already part of these demonstrations. It does not rescue the geometry. Watch it. Think about it. Try the observations yourself. And please share this one far and wide - especially because quite a few prominent flat-Earthers have blocked me, and I’d genuinely like them to see it. 😁 YouTube version is linked in the first comment.

FLAT EARTHER: The Sun disappears at sunset because it gets too far away to see. ME: What’s farther away - the Sun or the stars? FLERF: The stars. ME: And what’s brighter - the Sun or the stars? FLERF: The Sun. ME: So we can see vastly farther, vastly dimmer stars… but the much closer, vastly brighter Sun becomes “too far away to see”? 🤔 Interesting. 🙄 BONUS PROBLEM: If the Sun were simply moving farther away across a flat Earth, it should get smaller and smaller as it approaches the horizon. It doesn’t. It stays essentially the same angular size right up to sunset. EXTRA CREDIT: If the Sun is circling above the flat Earth between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, what geometric mechanism ever makes it go below the horizon? There isn’t one. In your FE “model,” it would remain visible to everyone everywhere all the time. It’s not. Checkmate, Flerfs.

I find these World Trade Center simulations by Kostack Studio fascinating because they remove the smoke and let you see the collapse much more clearly. In the real footage, so much is hidden by fire, dust, debris, distance, and chaos that many people come away with the impression that the towers simply dropped straight down into their own footprints. But that is not really what happened. These simulations make it much easier to see that the collapse begins in the heavily damaged and fire-weakened region, the upper section starts moving and tilting, and the destruction then propagates downward through the structure. The towers do not simply disappear vertically into their own footprints. Large portions of the upper structure and exterior are moving outward and to the side as the collapse develops. Much of that motion is simply obscured in the real videos once the enormous debris cloud forms. And this is also why I find these simulations useful when people describe the collapses as looking like “controlled demolition.” Strip away the smoke and dust and the resemblance becomes much less convincing. What you see is a highly asymmetric structural failure beginning around the aircraft-damaged and fire-affected floors, followed by an enormous moving mass progressively overwhelming the structure beneath it. There is tilting, rotation, exterior columns peeling away, debris being thrown far outside the building footprint, and structural failure occurring chaotically as the collapse moves downward. That is very different from the neat mental image usually implied by “controlled demolition,” where structural supports are deliberately severed in a carefully timed sequence to produce a predetermined collapse. And importantly, we already know what preceded these collapses. Both towers suffered massive aircraft-impact damage. Fireproofing was stripped from portions of the structure. Large, uncontrolled fires then burned across multiple floors - for about 56 minutes in the South Tower and about 102 minutes in the North Tower - heating and weakening structural components until collapse initiated. Once that upper mass began moving, the loads imposed on the floors and structure beneath became vastly greater than anything they had been designed to carry. The result was progressive collapse. No, an animation is not proof simply because it looks convincing, and these are not official NIST simulations. They are visualizations built under particular assumptions. But as visualizations, I think they are extremely useful. They let you see something the original footage often cannot show clearly: beneath that enormous cloud of smoke and debris was a complicated, violent, asymmetric structural failure - not two buildings neatly dropping straight down into their own footprints. A note on the simulation: this is not intended to reproduce the collapse down to the exact motion of every beam, floor panel, and fragment of debris. No practical simulation could do that. Its value is in modeling the large-scale structural behavior - how the major sections deform, move, tilt, separate, and progressively fail. Think of it as a visualization of the mechanics and overall collapse behavior, not a frame-by-frame reconstruction of where every piece of steel ultimately landed.

Anti-vaxxers love warning you about “Big Pharma.” The corporations are greedy. The scientists are bought. The regulators are corrupt. The doctors can’t be trusted. Then, almost on cue, someone in a white coat appears online to tell you about the treatment the medical establishment supposedly doesn’t want you to know about. Sometimes that person even has an MD after their name. And sometimes, conveniently, there’s a supplement store, treatment program, paid newsletter, affiliate link, clinic, book, course, or product waiting nearby. Apparently you should distrust doctors - except their doctors. Distrust pharmaceutical companies - but not the people selling supplements and “alternative” treatments. Question every vaccine study - but accept testimonials about ivermectin, fenbendazole, detoxes, high-dose vitamins and miracle supplements from strangers in a Facebook comment section. And those sellers have something pharmaceutical companies could only dream of: an army of unpaid salespeople. Post actual medical research and watch what happens. The comments fill themselves with people enthusiastically advertising the same miracle cures, defending the same personalities, repeating the same testimonials and sending people toward the same products. For free, with enthusiasm. Meanwhile, the industry behind “wellness” is worth $6.8 TRILLION - nearly four times the size of the pharmaceutical industry. Dietary supplements & alternative medicines are almost 6X the entire global vaccine market. There is big money in medicine. There is also staggering huge money in convincing you that medicine cannot be trusted, except their miracle cure “medicines.” (Sources in 1st comment 👇🏼)

Fact:

Well, this one aged beautifully. Once again, an anti-vaxx “peer reviewed paper” is shot down. Remember the 2024 BMJ Public Health paper that became a load-bearing wall of the COVID anti-vaccine argument? "Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic." 47 countries. 3,098,456 excess deaths from January 2020 through December 2022. Real data, pulled from Our World in Data, baselined with Karlinsky and Kobak's estimate model. Then the discussion section went hunting. It spent a remarkable amount of space gesturing at containment measures and vaccination as possible causes, in a paper with no design capable of determining the cause of anything. Within days it was everywhere. "Peer reviewed." Screenshotted. Memed. Waved at anyone who asked for evidence. BMJ posted an Expression of Concern in June 2024, about a month after publication, stating plainly that the study did not investigate or establish a causal link between containment measures, vaccination and excess deaths. That slowed nothing down. Here is the part most coverage buried. Ariel Karlinsky, the economist whose baseline model the paper ran on, began requesting retraction in June 2024. He said the analysis misused his data. He submitted a formal commentary. The journal desk-rejected it without review a month later. He also noticed something odd. His phrase "compromise between flexibility and simplicity" shows up in the paper as "a trade-off between suppleness and chasteness." Tortured phrasing like that is a known plagiarism signature. The Princess Maxima Center investigated two of the four authors. Its report concluded the article "pays disproportionate attention to the possibility that introduction of corona measures and vaccination might have caused excess mortality, whilst largely ignoring alternative explanations," and "misleadingly and unilaterally cites literature that supports its own arguments." August 11, 2026: retracted. Grounds were misinformation in the discussion of possible causes, plus the limited nature of the authors' original work. Two months earlier, corresponding author Saskia Mostert had testified to Ron Johnson's Senate investigations subcommittee, casting the scrutiny as an "official channel" tactic to discredit, intimidate, isolate and silence. Being asked whether your discussion supports its own insinuations is not intimidation. It is peer review arriving late. Now the honest part, because I hold my side to the same bar: The institution found no fabrication, no falsification, no misconduct. The excess death counts were not shown to be wrong. Two of the four authors requested retraction yet disagreed that "misinformation" was the right word. Karlinsky called BMJ's handling bad and the two-year delay indefensible, and he is right. A journal that desk-rejects the primary critic and then sits for two years hands the grievance narrative a gift. The underlying question was also legitimate. Excess deaths did outrun recorded COVID deaths in places. That deserved investigation. So it got one. A nationwide Dutch self-controlled case series covering the whole population, published in Eur J Epidemiol in January 2026, found 44% lower all-cause mortality in the three weeks after primary vaccination (IRR 0.56), similar after boosters. Part of that is healthy vaccinee effect and should be read that way. But the same design found a 16-fold higher rate of all-cause death in the three weeks after a registered positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (IRR 16.19). That is the shape of the real signal. It has been the shape for years. The paper was never being read as evidence. It was being carried as ammunition. Now that it has been pulled, watch how fast "PEER REVIEWED" stops being the standard. Sources: BMJ Public Health retraction notice + attached Princess Maxima report (11 Aug 2026); Mostert testimony, Senate HSGAC PSI (3 Jun 2026); Slurink et al., Eur J Epidemiol (2026).