Tourette’s: The Tic That Won’t Go Away

An Essay on Tourette Syndrome, Vaccines, and the Machinery of “No Evidence”

A new British film called I Swear opened in cinemas in July 2025. Directed by Kirk Jones and starring Robert Aramayo alongside Maxine Peake and Shirley Henderson, it tells the story of John Davidson, diagnosed with Tourette syndrome at age fifteen in 1980s Britain. The trailer — viewed over four million times — promises a funny, heartfelt, and moving account of life with a condition that was “little known and entirely misunderstood.”

The film will show audiences what it is like to live with Tourette syndrome. It will not tell them that childhood vaccines are a probable cause.

The film’s cultural reach extended beyond cinemas. At the 2026 BAFTA Film Awards in London, John Davidson — the man whose life inspired I Swear, attending as executive producer — involuntarily shouted a racial slur while Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were on stage presenting an award. The outburst was a vocal tic, characteristic of his condition, but because it contained the N-word and was broadcast uncensored by the BBC and in international feeds, it triggered a major backlash. BAFTA issued public apologies. Davidson released a statement saying he was “deeply mortified” if anyone believed his tics were intentional, stressing they were involuntary symptoms.

The incident made international news. Every outlet that covered it focused on the social experience of the condition — the embarrassment, the misunderstanding, the need for accommodation. Not one asked the question that the medical literature demands: what is producing these involuntary neurological events?

This is how disease branding works. A condition is given a public face, a sympathetic narrative, and a cultural moment. The audience learns to understand and accommodate. The question of causation — the question that implicates products, policies, and institutions — is never part of the script.

Tic disorders were once considered rare. They are now the most common movement disorder in children.¹ Tourette syndrome alone affects an estimated one in every 162 children in the United States, though only about half receive a diagnosis.² Eighty-three percent of diagnosed children have at least one co-occurring condition — ADHD, anxiety, OCD, autism — the same cluster of neurodevelopmental disorders that saturates the vaccine injury literature.³

Whether tic disorders have genuinely increased in prevalence or whether the apparent rise reflects changing diagnostic criteria remains an open question — but only because the studies that would answer it were never funded. Register-based data from South Korea shows a statistically significant increase in annual tic disorder incidence from 2003 to 2020, with the sharpest rise in children and adolescents.⁴ Similar upward trends appear in Taiwanese and Finnish national datasets.⁵ ⁶ The inability to distinguish real increase from improved recognition is not an accident. It is the predictable result of institutional choices about which studies get commissioned and which do not.

At least seven independent analyses — conducted by CDC epidemiologists, UK public health researchers, and independent investigators — have found statistically significant associations between vaccine exposure and tic disorders. The signal has appeared across multiple vaccine types, multiple countries, and multiple research teams. The institutional response, at every level, has been to reframe these findings as inconclusive, deny petitions to recognise tics as a vaccine injury, and dismiss every compensation claim ever brought — while never commissioning the definitive study that would resolve the question.

This essay follows the documents through all three arms of that institutional response: the published studies and what they actually found, the 2019 Federal Register denial and what it omitted, and the vaccine court record and what it reveals about how “no evidence” is manufactured. It also examines the mechanism — how metals deposited in the brain produce the specific pattern of cranial nerve dysfunction that presents as tics and Tourette syndrome.

---

Support Independent Investigative Journalism and Research

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

What paid subscribers get: Access to all books I’ve written plus 1-2 new ones per month. e.g.

The DMSO Book
Chlorine Dioxide
The PSA Trap
Breast Cancer
Drilling for Profit
What Your Vet Can’t Tell You

Plus: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions regularly added. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.

[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]

unbekoming@outlook.com

---

The Studies and Their Signals

The most direct evidence connecting childhood vaccines to tic disorders comes from the CDC’s own research infrastructure.

In 2003, a screening analysis using the Vaccine Safety Datalink — the CDC’s network of managed care organisations — examined cumulative thimerosal exposure and multiple developmental outcomes. Published in Pediatrics, the study’s Phase I analysis found that at one HMO, thimerosal exposure by three months of age was significantly associated with tics: relative risk 1.89, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.05 to 3.38.⁷ The signal cleared the threshold for statistical significance. It appeared in the CDC’s own surveillance system.

Phase II, conducted at a different managed care organisation, did not replicate the finding. The authors concluded there were “no consistent significant associations.” The Phase I tics result was not retracted. It was not corrected. It was absorbed into a framing that emphasised inconsistency across sites and outcomes — a framing that allowed the significant finding to remain visible in the data tables while disappearing from the conclusions.

The following year, a UK retrospective cohort study — also published in Pediatrics — evaluated thimerosal exposure through DTP/DT vaccines and multiple developmental outcomes using computerised medical records. The authors reported that “with the possible exception of tics,” the data did not support a causal association with thimerosal.⁸ A dose-response relationship for tics appeared in the analysis. Children receiving more thimerosal earlier in infancy had a higher incidence of tic disorders.⁹

The paper’s title is worth reading in full: “Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association.” The title does not mention the exception. The data does.

In 2007, the data became harder to contextualise away.

William Thompson — a senior epidemiologist in the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office — led a large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine evaluating early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at ages seven to ten.¹⁰ Using the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, Thompson’s team found that boys receiving higher levels of thimerosal through infant vaccines in the first seven months of life had 2.19 times greater odds of motor tics and 2.44 times greater odds of phonic tics compared to boys receiving lower levels.¹¹ Both findings were statistically significant.

Motor tics and phonic tics are the two defining diagnostic criteria for Tourette syndrome.

The study’s design compressed the exposure range. There was no zero-exposure control group. The “low exposure” and “high exposure” categories were defined as two standard deviations apart within a cohort where the median mercury exposure was 112.5 micrograms, and fewer than two percent of participants had received no thimerosal at all.¹² The comparison was not between exposed and unexposed children. It was between children who received a lot of mercury and children who received slightly less. The signal appeared anyway.

In a subsequent CDC publication with John Barile of Georgia State University, Thompson affirmed the relationship between thimerosal and tics.¹³ The Barile study, also using VSD data, reported a small positive association for tic-like outcomes in boys — smaller than the 2007 findings, but pointing in the same direction, from the same database, for the same outcome, in the same sex.

The clinical implications are specific. Tourette syndrome is diagnosed when a patient presents with multiple motor tics and at least one phonic tic, persisting for more than a year, with onset before age eighteen.¹⁴ Thompson’s study found statistically significant dose-dependent associations for both motor tics and phonic tics — the two components of the Tourette diagnostic definition — in boys exposed to higher levels of thimerosal through routine infant vaccination. The data did not diagnose anyone with Tourette syndrome. But it identified significant elevations in the precise symptom categories that define the disorder.

The study’s own conclusions did not frame it this way. The authors emphasised that the overall pattern across all assessed outcomes — not just tics, but speech, attention, behaviour, and neuropsychological performance — was inconsistent with a single coherent toxicological profile. The tics findings were real, acknowledged, and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They were also treated as data points within a larger matrix of “mixed” results, rather than as a standalone signal warranting dedicated follow-up.

No follow-up study specifically designed to investigate the thimerosal-tics association was ever commissioned. But independent researchers did pursue the question.

A series of case-control studies by Geier et al. using Vaccine Safety Datalink medical records produced dose-response data that was more explicit than anything the CDC had published. A 2015 study found that children diagnosed with a tic disorder were significantly more likely to have received increased organic mercury from the hepatitis B vaccine, with an odds ratio of 2.97 for children exposed to 37.5 micrograms of mercury in their first six months of life.¹⁵ A 2014 analysis of the same vaccine at the same exposure level produced an odds ratio of 2.2 for tic disorders.¹⁶ A 2017 study examining the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine found that for every additional 25 micrograms of mercury exposure, the odds of a tic disorder diagnosis increased with an odds ratio of 1.43.¹⁷

These are dose-response relationships — the more mercury, the more tics — across multiple vaccine types, using the CDC’s own medical records infrastructure.

The Andrews UK data, when examined in detail, reinforces the pattern. Tics were not merely one finding among many. They were the only neurodevelopmental outcome in the study that showed a higher risk with increasing doses of thimerosal, with a hazard ratio of 1.50 per additional dose at four months of age.¹⁸ Every other assessed outcome either showed no association or showed a paradoxical “protective” effect — a pattern the authors acknowledged was inconsistent and difficult to interpret. Tics stood alone.

The evidence extends beyond thimerosal. A study by Leslie et al. examining claims data found that children with chronic tic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and anxiety were more likely to have received an influenza vaccine in the preceding twelve-month period.¹⁹ The influenza vaccine is currently administered — it is not a historical artefact of the thimerosal era. Multidose influenza vials still contain thimerosal in some formulations, but the Leslie finding raises questions that go beyond a single preservative.

The tally is substantial. At least seven independent analyses — conducted by CDC epidemiologists, UK public health researchers, and independent investigators — found statistically significant associations between vaccine exposure and tic disorders. The signal appeared in VSD data, in UK medical records, and in claims databases. It appeared for the hepatitis B vaccine, for DTP/DT vaccines, for Hib vaccines, and for influenza vaccines. It appeared in boys specifically. It appeared with dose-response gradients.

The institutional response to this evidence has been to treat each finding as an isolated anomaly. By the Bradford Hill criteria — temporal association, dose-response, biological plausibility, consistency across independent datasets, specificity of outcome — seven analyses producing significant results for the same outcome, across different populations, different vaccines, and different countries, is not a collection of anomalies. It is a pattern. The institutional preference for treating it otherwise is itself a data point.

---

The Mechanism: Metals and Cranial Nerves

Seven studies found the statistical association. The historical and anatomical record explains the mechanism.

In the early 1800s, as mercury-based medicines — calomel, blue pills, mercuric purgatives — were administered in massive doses, physicians began documenting a condition they called tic douloureux: a sudden, stabbing pain in one side of the face, so intense that it produced involuntary facial twitching. The attacks were associated with the 5th cranial nerve (trigeminal), and the patients who suffered them were frequently the same patients receiving large doses of medicinal mercury.²⁰

Forrest Maready, in his investigation of cranial nerve disorders and their relationship to metals in medicine, proposes that modern facial tics are a subtle form of the same phenomenon — what he calls “tic douloureux-lite.” His thesis is that tics are not primarily motor disorders but sensory ones: the 5th cranial nerve generates phantom pain signals, and the 7th cranial nerve twitches the face in automatic response, whether or not conscious pain is perceived.²¹ The jaw-popping tic, the eye-blink tic, the facial scrunch — all map onto the territory of the trigeminal and facial nerves.

Vocal tics — the defining feature that elevates a tic disorder to a Tourette diagnosis — implicate the 10th cranial nerve (vagus), which controls the vocal cords. Maready proposes that involuntary vocalisations are the product of vagal nerve dysfunction: the nerve fires, the vocal cords respond, and what would have been a meaningless grunt or squeak is channelled by the brain into an intelligible word or phrase — a pattern that locks in through repetition, much the way “ouch” becomes an automatic response to pain.²² The head snaps and shoulder shrugs common in Tourette syndrome map onto the 11th cranial nerve, which controls neck and shoulder muscles. Full-body tics implicate inflammation in the thalamus and deeper brain structures.²³

The observation that ties this together: people demonstrating tics on video frequently show signs of other cranial nerve palsies — partial eye blinks, asymmetrical smiles, misaligned eyes.²⁴ This is not a pattern consistent with a single isolated motor disorder. It is consistent with broader cranial nerve dysfunction — the kind produced by neurotoxic metals deposited in the brainstem and cranial nerve nuclei.

The parallel across two centuries is direct. In the 1800s, mercury administered orally as medicine produced tic douloureux and cranial nerve palsies. In the modern era, mercury (thimerosal) and aluminum injected as vaccine components produce tics, vocal tics, and the broader pattern of cranial nerve dysfunction that presents as Tourette syndrome. The route of administration changed — from oral to injected, which bypasses the body’s filtration systems. The metals changed in proportion — less mercury, more aluminum. The target anatomy did not change. The cranial nerves emerging from the brainstem remain as vulnerable to metal-induced inflammation as they were two hundred years ago.²⁵

This is the mechanism the epidemiological studies detect but do not explain. Seven analyses found that more vaccine exposure means more tics. The cranial nerve thesis explains why: because the metals in those vaccines are depositing in the structures that control the face, the voice, the neck, and the shoulders — producing exactly the symptom profile that gets diagnosed as Tourette syndrome.

---

The Petition and the Denial

In March and May of 2017, a private citizen submitted letters to the Department of Health and Human Services requesting that tics be added to the Vaccine Injury Table — the list of conditions formally recognised as vaccine injuries under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.²⁶

The petitioner cited two CDC employees who had been quoted as believing there was evidence that vaccines can cause tics. HHS noted in its response that “neither the CDC nor the CDC employees have verified these comments.”²⁷

On March 27, 2019, HHS published its formal denial in the Federal Register: a “Statement of Reasons for Not Conducting Rulemaking Proceedings” to add autism, asthma, and tics to the Table.²⁸

The denial’s tics section repays close reading.

HHS cited the 2007 Thompson NEJM study and acknowledged the tics findings but characterised the overall pattern as insufficient to establish causality.²⁹ It also cited the 2012 Barile study, summarising it as finding only “a small positive association for tics in boys.”³⁰ HHS then criticised the Barile study’s methodology: the tic assessors had received just thirty minutes of training via a 1989 video, met no reliability criteria, and their assessments agreed with parents’ reports only 23% of the time for motor tics and 16% for phonic tics.³¹

What HHS chose not to foreground is revealing.

The 2003 VSD Phase I tics signal — relative risk 1.89, statistically significant, generated from the CDC’s own surveillance infrastructure — is not prominently analysed in the denial’s discussion of tics.³² The 2004 UK cohort study’s “possible exception of tics” — the one outcome the authors themselves flagged as surviving their analysis — is similarly absent from the central discussion.³³ These are two of the most widely cited results in the thimerosal-and-tics sub-literature. They appear in systematic reviews. They appear in the debates that generated the citizen petition. They do not appear, with any prominence, in the government’s published explanation of why that petition was denied.

HHS concluded: “Current scientific evidence does not support a causal association between thimerosal-containing or thimerosal-free vaccinations and tics/tic disorders.”³⁴

The studies that found significant associations between thimerosal and tics were conducted, funded, or overseen within the same institutional system that produced that conclusion.

---

The Court Record

If the published studies represent the scientific arm of this system and the Federal Register denial represents the regulatory arm, the vaccine court represents the adjudicative arm. Together, they close the loop.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program — established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act — requires anyone claiming a vaccine injury to file first with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Tic disorders are not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. This means petitioners cannot rely on the presumption of causation available for listed injuries. Instead, they must prove causation-in-fact under the three-prong Althen test: a medical theory connecting the vaccine to the injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship.³⁵

In 2024, a chief special master in the Court of Federal Claims issued a decision that provides an unusually direct synthesis of Tourette syndrome claims in the program’s history. The decision noted that a small number of Tourette-syndrome vaccine-causation cases have been brought. None resulted in a favourable entitlement finding.³⁶

The named dismissals tell the story in miniature. Reape v. Secretary of HHS: Tourette syndrome after FluMist. Dismissed. Duncan v. Secretary of HHS: Tourette syndrome after DTaP. Dismissed. Castaneda: Tourette combined with PANS/PANDAS theories. Dismissed.³⁷ A separate 2013 decision involving Tourette claims following HPV vaccination was dismissed after petitioners withdrew; the case record described a clear temporal relationship — eye blinking and involuntary jerking movements beginning shortly after vaccination — but the evidence was ruled insufficient.³⁸

The 2024 decision’s reasoning reveals the standard being applied. The special master rejected mechanistic theories based on generalised cytokine activation and molecular mimicry, finding them insufficiently specific to the vaccine and the injury.³⁹ Arguments proposing aluminum adjuvant neurotoxicity were flagged as resembling the “Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants” (ASIA) framework, which the decision noted has been “widely rejected in the Vaccine Program.”⁴⁰

This is a legal-adjudicative finding, not a scientific one. The court did not rule that aluminum cannot cause neurological injury. It ruled that the theoretical framework presented did not meet the evidentiary standard required for compensation in this forum. That is a distinction the court’s own language invites — and one that matters, because the legal standard and the scientific standard are not the same thing, even though the outputs of each are routinely cited as if they were.

The practical architecture is now visible. The studies find signals but frame them as inconsistent. The regulatory body declines to list tics on the Injury Table, citing insufficient evidence — while selectively engaging with the studies that produced that evidence. The court dismisses individual claims, referencing the same evidentiary landscape in which “no consistent association” has become the settled institutional position. Each arm of the system cites the outputs of the others as supporting its own conclusions. None commissions the work that would break the circle.

Consider the position of a parent whose child developed tics after vaccination. They cannot point to a Table listing, because tics are not on the Table. They cannot rely on the regulatory finding, because HHS concluded there was no causal association. They cannot cite the epidemiological studies as proof, because the studies’ own authors framed their significant findings as inconclusive. And they cannot commission a properly designed study on their own. Every door they approach has been closed by a different arm of the same institution — and behind each closed door is a reference to one of the other closed doors as justification.

---

The Studies That Were Never Done

No large, pre-registered, vaccinated-versus-fully-unvaccinated study has ever measured tic disorders as a primary outcome.⁴¹

No regulatory body has ever commissioned a prospective study specifically designed to test whether vaccines cause tics.⁴²

The entire tic-disorder evidence base consists of retrospective analyses of existing databases — databases built within populations where virtually everyone was vaccinated. Thompson’s 2007 study had fewer than two percent of participants with zero thimerosal exposure. The Andrews UK cohort required a minimum of three DTP/DT doses before the first birthday. The comparison, in every case, was between more-exposed and less-exposed children within an almost universally exposed population. Even within that compressed range, the tics signals appeared.

The question “do vaccines cause tic disorders?” can only be definitively answered by comparing children who received vaccines with children who did not. That study has never been conducted for this outcome. The studies that do exist — constrained by design to detect only dose-response gradients within a nearly saturated population — found signals. Those signals were characterised as “not consistent” and used to justify not commissioning the study that would produce a definitive answer.

The structure is visible. The evidence is not absent. It is present, acknowledged in data tables and footnotes, and then processed through a system that converts it into “no evidence” at each institutional output — the journal conclusion, the Federal Register denial, the court dismissal.

---

What Remains in the Record

Tourette syndrome is defined by two features: multiple motor tics and at least one phonic tic, persisting for more than a year, with onset before age eighteen. The CDC’s own senior epidemiologist published data showing that thimerosal exposure in infant vaccines was significantly associated with both motor tics and phonic tics in boys — the two components of the diagnostic definition.

A UK cohort study found tics to be the one outcome that survived its analysis of thimerosal exposure, and flagged this in the text while denying it in the title.

A VSD screening analysis found a significant tics signal in Phase I and absorbed it into a conclusion of “no consistent association.”

A citizen petitioned to add tics to the Vaccine Injury Table. HHS denied the petition while omitting key studies from its analysis.

Every Tourette claim brought to the vaccine court has been dismissed.

No vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study has ever measured tics as an outcome. No prospective study has been commissioned to answer the question directly. The absence of that study is cited as absence of evidence. The absence of evidence is then presented as evidence of absence.

Meanwhile, a condition once considered rare is now the most common movement disorder in childhood. Over eighty percent of affected children carry diagnoses in the same neurodevelopmental cluster — ADHD, autism, OCD, anxiety — that appears throughout the vaccine injury literature. Whether the apparent increase is biological or diagnostic remains unanswerable, because the studies that would distinguish one from the other were never funded.

A major film is now introducing millions of people to Tourette syndrome. It will generate sympathy. It will generate awareness. It will not generate the single question that the documentary record demands: what is doing this to children’s brains?

That question has not been answered. It has been processed — through study designs that compress the exposure range, through conclusions that contradict their own data tables, through a regulatory denial that selectively cited its own evidence base, through a court system that applies legal standards while producing outputs that are received as scientific ones.

The documents exist. The data tables are printed. The Federal Register notice carries a date and a docket number. The court decisions name the cases and the reasons for dismissal. They are all public.

The tic that won’t go away is not only in the children. It is in the data — surfacing, being contextualised into silence, and surfacing again.

---

References

¹ Knight T, Steeves T, Day L, et al. “Prevalence of tic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Pediatric Neurology. 2012;47(2):77-90.

² Bitsko RH, Claussen AH, Lichstein J, et al. “Mental Health Surveillance Among Children — United States, 2013–2019.” MMWR Suppl. 2022;71(2):1-48.

³ CDC. “Data and Statistics on Tourette Syndrome.” cdc.gov/tourette-syndrome/data. Updated July 2025.

⁴ Kim S, Kim MS, Kim J, Hong SB. “Incidence trend and epidemiology of tic disorders among youths and adults in Korea from 2003 to 2020.” Psychiatry Research. 2024;331:115634.

⁵ Chou IC, et al. Nationwide population-based study of tic disorder incidence in Taiwan, 2007–2015. (Referenced in epidemiological review, Brain Sciences. 2025;15(5):426.)

⁶ Finnish nationwide register study of tic disorder diagnoses, validity assessment. BMJ Open. 2015;5(6):e007520.

⁷ Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al. “Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases.” Pediatrics. 2003;112(5):1039-1048.

⁸ Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, et al. “Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association.” Pediatrics. 2004;114(3):584-591.

⁹ Kennedy RF Jr. Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak. Chapter 3. (Analysis of Andrews et al. hazard ratios for tics by timing of thimerosal-containing DTP/DT exposure.)

¹⁰ Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al. “Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;357(13):1281-1292.

¹¹ Kennedy RF Jr. Vax-Unvax. Chapter 3. (Reporting Thompson et al. odds ratios: motor tics OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.02–4.67; phonic tics OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.12–5.35.)

¹² Kennedy RF Jr. Vax-Unvax. Chapter 3. (Median thimerosal exposure 112.5μg; <2% zero exposure in cohort.)

¹³ Barile JP, Kuperminc GP, Weintraub ES, Mink JW, Thompson WW. “Thimerosal exposure in early life and neuropsychological outcomes 7–10 years later.” Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2012;37(1):106-118.

¹⁴ American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5). 2013. Tourette’s Disorder diagnostic criteria: 307.23 (F95.2).

¹⁵ Geier DA, Kern JK, Geier MR. “Thimerosal exposure and increased risk for diagnosed tic disorder in the United States: a case-control study.” Interdisciplinary Toxicology. 2015;8(2):68-76.

¹⁶ Geier DA, Kern JK, Geier MR. “A dose-response relationship between organic mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014;11(9):9156-9170.

¹⁷ Geier DA, Kern JK, Geier MR. “Abnormal brain connectivity spectrum disorders following thimerosal administration: a prospective assessment using the VSD.” Dose-Response. 2017;15(1).

¹⁸ Andrews et al. 2004. (Tics as the only neurodevelopmental outcome showing higher risk with increasing thimerosal dose; HR 1.50 per additional dose at 4 months. Detail from comprehensive review synthesis.)

¹⁹ Leslie DL, Kobre RA, Richmand BJ, Aktan Guloksuz S, Leckman JF. “Temporal association of certain neuropsychiatric disorders following vaccination of children and adolescents.” Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. 2017;27(5):491-497.

²⁰ Maready F. Crooked: Man-Made Disease Explained. Chapter: Tics, Tourette’s & Facial Pain. (Historical accounts of tic douloureux in patients receiving mercuric medicines, 1837 case reports.)

²¹ Ibid. (Proposed mechanism: facial tics as subtle 5th cranial nerve palsy, sensory disorder rather than motor disorder.)

²² Ibid. (Proposed mechanism: vocal tics as 10th cranial nerve [vagus] dysfunction producing involuntary vocalisation.)

²³ Ibid. (11th cranial nerve dysfunction in head/shoulder tics; thalamic inflammation in full-body tics.)

²⁴ Ibid. (Observation of co-occurring cranial nerve palsies — partial eye blinks, asymmetrical smiles, misaligned eyes — in individuals with Tourette syndrome.)

²⁵ Ibid. (Historical parallel between mercury-era tic douloureux and modern vaccine-era tics; route of administration shift from oral to injected.)

²⁶ Federal Register. Vol. 84, No. 59. March 27, 2019. “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Statement of Reasons for Not Conducting Rulemaking Proceedings.” pp. 11476-11482.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 11478.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Ibid. (Discussion of Thompson et al. 2007 in tics section.)

³⁰ Ibid. (Discussion of Barile et al. 2012 findings.)

³¹ Ibid. (Critique of Barile study methodology: assessor training duration, parent-assessor concordance rates for motor and phonic tics.)

³² Verstraeten et al. 2003, Phase I tics signal (RR 1.89). Not prominently analysed in the 2019 denial’s tics discussion.

³³ Andrews et al. 2004, “with the possible exception of tics.” Not prominently analysed in the 2019 denial’s tics discussion.

³⁴ Federal Register. Vol. 84, No. 59. March 27, 2019. p. 11479.

³⁵ Althen v. Secretary of HHS, 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005). (Establishing three-prong causation-in-fact test for off-Table vaccine injury claims.)

³⁶ U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Case No. 1:20-vv-01716. Decision, 2024. (Synthesis of Tourette syndrome claims history in the VICP; no favourable entitlement finding documented.)

³⁷ Ibid. (Citing Reape v. Secretary of HHS, No. 15-1146V; Duncan v. Secretary of HHS, No. 00-183V; Castaneda, No. 15-1066V.)

³⁸ Hamilton-Fieldman/Jones. Special Master decision, December 2013. (HPV vaccine/Tourette claim; dismissed after petitioner withdrawal; temporal relationship described in case record.)

³⁹ Case No. 1:20-vv-01716. 2024. (Rejection of generalised cytokine activation and molecular mimicry theories as insufficiently vaccine- and injury-specific.)

⁴⁰ Ibid. (ASIA framework characterised as “widely rejected in the Vaccine Program.”)

⁴¹ No pre-registered vaccinated-versus-fully-unvaccinated study with tic disorder as primary endpoint identified in comprehensive literature review (Deep Research synthesis, March 2026).

⁴² Published evidence base for tics and vaccines dominated by retrospective observational analyses of existing databases. No commissioned prospective trial with tic outcomes as primary endpoint identified.