Thanks for your thoughtful and honest reflection — it’s clear you’ve taken the time to consider your position. I would like to respond from the perspective of a medical specialist in the field.
I can understand how someone with a background involving institutional mistrust might approach science with caution. Healthy scepticism is important, and indeed it's a foundation of good scientific thinking. That said, it’s also vital to be able to separate healthy scepticism from confirmation bias — the tendency to give more weight to information that supports what we already believe.
On the question of vaccines and autism, I’d gently offer that this issue has been investigated more extensively than nearly any other question in medical science. The original claim suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism has long since been discredited — the paper was retracted, the author lost his medical licence, and multiple large-scale studies since then (some involving millions of children) have found no causal relationship between vaccines and autism. That conclusion holds across countries, populations, and different vaccine schedules.
It’s also worth considering the significant changes in diagnostic criteria and awareness around autism over the past two decades, which help explain rising diagnosis rates — rather than pointing to a new environmental trigger.
Regarding mRNA COVID vaccines — the term “gene therapy” is not accurate. These vaccines do not alter DNA or integrate into the genome. They simply deliver a short-lived message to cells to produce a viral protein fragment, prompting the immune system to recognise and respond to it. The initial public health messaging around infection and transmission understandably changed over time as data from real-world use emerged. That’s not evidence of deceit — it’s how science works in practice: adapting to new information as it becomes available.
On Ivermectin, you’re right that conflicting early studies existed — which is often the case in emerging health crises. But as higher-quality studies were completed, the overall evidence showed that it offers no meaningful benefit in COVID-19 treatment for most people. It’s a good example of why we need to rely on systematic evidence rather than isolated early results or anecdotal impressions.
It’s also true that bias, funding issues, and even misconduct can exist in science. But science has built-in mechanisms for self-correction — replication, peer review, retraction when necessary — and it’s this process over time that generates reliable conclusions. No system is perfect, but the process is far more robust than many alternatives.
Finally, I absolutely don’t dismiss personal stories of vaccine injury. They’re often shared in good faith and can be very distressing. But from a scientific standpoint, we need to be careful not to infer causality from correlation, especially when early signs of neurodevelopmental differences often emerge around the same time as scheduled childhood vaccinations.
Which brings me to Neuren. You’re absolutely right to be mindful of optimism bias in investing — especially in biotechs, where emotion and hope can cloud judgment. I’ve followed Neuren’s development closely, and what gives me confidence in their platform (including NNZ-2591) is precisely this: the science is robust, peer-reviewed, independently validated across multiple indications, and supported by strong biological rationale — including IGF-1 pathways and synaptic function, which are relevant across a spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders. Their trials aren’t based on fringe theories or outlier data — they’ve been designed in collaboration with regulators and top researchers, using measurable endpoints and clear mechanisms of action.
So yes, we should always question — but we also need to recognise when that questioning becomes unbalanced. In my view, Neuren has built its case with real science, real data, and genuine therapeutic promise — and that’s where confidence should come from.
(20min delay)