## We are basically causing these effects. Nowadays, 80% of the deviations from traditional norms can be ascribed to vaccination. Clinical evidence (25 years/5,000 kids) aligns with the survey.

by: **Steve Kirsch**

**KirschSubstack.com**

Thanks to your help in responding to my last survey, it took less than 3 hours to answer the question as to whether sexual orientation, gender identity and gender dysphoria are influenced by vaccines. The answer to all three is yes: the greater someone is vaccinated, the more likely they are to exhibit each of these traits.Â

Â

For all three measures, the odds ratios were 4.8 or higher which means that the attributable fraction is 79.2%. In other words, vaccines are responsible for nearly 80% of the effect size. So the mystery is over. We now know the cause.

**[The survey, the data and the analysis can be found at KirschSubstack.com]**

Â

**The odds ratios**

Here are the odds ratio between the fully vaccinated/fully unvaccinated. Odds ratios >2 are traditionally associated with causality:

- Sexual orientation: 4:78
- Gender identity: 4:81
- Gender dysphoria: 5:54

These effects are huge and consistent.

Â

Also, the odds ratios for partially vaccinated are in line with the fully vaccinated: in general, **the greater the number of vaccines someone has, the more likely they are to have a trait that differs from traditional norms**.

Â

So the **vaccines themselves are the elephant in the room here** and the driver of the response, not environment, upbringing, social pressure, etc. I have not seen any data that disputes this. Nobody in the comments has presented any contrary data.

Â

**We have clinical confirmation!**

There is a pediatric clinic which has not had any gender/sex cases in 25 years. Theyâve had over 5,000 kids and no cases. They do not vaccinate. The overall incidence of orientation traits is over .5%. So in 5,000 unjabbed kids, they should have had 25 cases, but had 0. This can happen by chance with probability 1.39e-11. So this was not bad luck. The only major thing this pediatric clinic did differently was they did not vaccinate. So thatâs an interesting datapoint that would be impossible to explain away if the primary cause (e.g., for 80% of the cases) was something other than vaccines.

Â

**We have biological plausibility**

Itâs unlikely that these effects are correlated to something else.

We have **biological plausibility** which is required for making a causality assessment using the Bradford Hill criteria. See: How Vaccines Alter Intimate Relationships and Gender Identity.

Â

**Causation evidence**

There are 5 Bradford Hill criteria. Four of the five are obvious. The temporal association is harder to show, but we have:

- There is a dose-response: when we increase the level of vaccination, the effect increases
- We have a clinic with no traits observed over 25 years in unvaccinated kids.

So if it isnât the vaccine, Iâm baffled as to what else it could be that fits the evidence. So far, not a single person has suggested an alternative that is a better fit to the observed data. So the vaccine is simply the most likely hypothesis because itâs the only hypothesis consistent with the data.

Â

**Bias in the survey**

I have more unvaccinated readers than most journalists. This enables me to get reasonable sample sizes for people in the fully vaxxed vs. unvaxxed cohorts with just 750 responses. Other writers would need 100X as many respondents to get an equivalent number of responses from fully unvaccinated people.Â

Â

The mix of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated respondents is irrelevant to the odds ratio calculation. In other words, if all of my readers are all âanti-vaxxersâ it simply doesnât matter. If half of them are fully unvaccinated, it doesnât skew the results at all; in fact, it makes the results more accurate.

Â

So claims that the survey is unduly âbiasedâ are without merit; all surveys are biased. The question is whether the biases impact the outcome. If I got it wrong, please show us the correct data. AFAIK [As far as I know], nobody wants to collect the data for some reason.

Â

**Summary**

The data I collected clearly and unambiguously shows that vaccines are the primary cause (79% attributable fraction) of deviation from traditional norms relative to:

- Sexual orientation
- Gender identity
- Sexual dysphoria

If Iâm wrong, you need to show us all the data showing this is not the case.Â

Iâll wait.