Report linking autism to vaccines is retracted by medical journal

Twelve years after Dr. Andrew Wakefield published his research in the international medical journal the Lancet purporting that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism, the journal on Tuesday formally retracted the paper.

The action came less than a week after the U.K. General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Panel concluded that Wakefield had provided false information in the report and acted with "callous disregard" for the children in the study. The council is now considering whether Wakefield is guilty of serious professional misconduct. A positive finding could cause him to lose his medical practice.

Link

So, we've now had official recognition at the university and journal level that the study was improperly conducted, full of ethical problems, and is not conclusive in any meaning of the word.

Can we end this silly urban myth now?

And it only took twelve years.

May I inquire, has there ever been such a retraction and purging from the medical community on any widely propagated and accepted medical report in the past? Can we expect throngs of physicians to scour the 'facts' delivered by the medical society for other such cases; or is it only the vaccine link that merits such scrutiny?

Who from the Lancet made this monumental discovery of hoaxterism and fraud? From whence did the "new" information come, and why did it take twelve years to figure it out.

I find myself wondering if this isn't precisely the kind of revisionism that historians warn us about?

You know, I am not arguing that the link was real or not. Only that the circumstances and execution of the "debunking" to be less than persuasive and irregular to the point of alarm.

reply to post by Maxmars


Ten of the thirteen original authors have come forward and admitted that the sample size was too small and that the data simply did not support the link that the published paper made. They only examined twelve children. Additionally, those ten authors have admitted that unethical treatment of the children occurred, marring the data further and allowing all sorts of error into the analysis.

The journal itself did not push for the retraction, nor did any committee. The authors themselves signed a letter asking for the retraction.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I wonder why the original authors were "OK" with it for twelve years? Was it that someone was about to expose and humiliate them - that they suddenly recanted and described the fraud and abuse of trust that they perpetrated?

Certainly the Lancet, a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a projected image of 'indisputable authority' perhaps among the top three medical journals on the planet MUST have done some kind of verification and examination prior to publishing it?

Does the then-editor or editorial staff, or corporate historians have any comment on the matter?

I offer no resistance to the story, only it's 'sudden' appearance and impact it has on the disposition of vaccine formulation and the colossal liability it represents for the medical community - especially the 'leaders' and 'educators' who surely must have some sense of the magnitude of the symptom this event represents.

While I know this is a heated and contentious subject, the Codex comes to mind, as well as the corporate law that drives the commerce-entrenched establishment.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Maxmars]

HAHA LMAO! This is like a huge wet dream for VZP.......people like her/him eat this stuff right up.

They will do everything to fight the possibility that their precious vaccines created through such hardwork and innovation might actually be harming people. I've always been on the fence with the whole vaccine and autism link but to call it "silly urban myth" is pretty stupid and naive. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the exponential increase in vaccinations among our children is harming their health in some ways. It doesn't take a genius to realize after all the hardline diet dictorats and medical doctors pushing the lipid hypothesis heart disease is more common than ever. But they'll never admit that vaccines and cholesterol drugs are two of the top 5 biggest honeypots for the pharmaceutical industry.

And for an academic such as his/herself to act as if these medical journals are the end all be all god's word when it comes to medical science is disengenous and laughable. The Lancet is not withou fallibility, controversy, and scandal.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

I wonder why the original authors were "OK" with it for twelve years? Was it that someone was about to expose and humiliate them - that they suddenly recanted and described the fraud and abuse of trust that they perpetrated?

I'm not sure why they suddenly decided to recant. It could be that the lead author didn't divulge everything, or maybe they just had a change of heart. I can't say, as I don't have the information at hand, sorry!

Certainly the Lancet, a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a projected image of 'indisputable authority' perhaps among the top three medical journals on the planet MUST have done some kind of verification and examination prior to publishing it?

I would imagine they typically do, but when studies are mostly statistically based, they rely on further clinical follow-ups to verify or deny the studies. They have no problem publishing further studies that contradict the original, as this isn't the same as falsifying results, it simply means the original hypothesis was wrong.

Does the then-editor or editorial staff, or corporate historians have any comment on the matter?

No clue, I haven't seen any.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
HAHA LMAO! This is like a huge wet dream for VZP.......people like her/him eat this stuff right up.

As hominems are the first response of those with no argument.

[quote[They will do everything to fight the possibility that their precious vaccines created through such hardwork and innovation might actually be harming people.

I have no problem admitting this, so long as there is actually evidence.

I've always been on the fence with the whole vaccine and autism link but to call it "silly urban myth" is pretty stupid and naive. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the exponential increase in vaccinations among our children is harming their health in some ways.

Can you provide evidence of this harm? You may want to forward it on to the parents of the children who died of pertussis this year due to avoiding the DPT vaccine.

It doesn't take a genius to realize after all the hardline diet dictorats and medical doctors pushing the lipid hypothesis heart disease is more common than ever. But they'll never admit that vaccines and cholesterol drugs are two of the top 5 biggest honeypots for the pharmaceutical industry.

Vaccines actually don't produve much money, as many more are given freely at public health than paid for. I can't even recall the last time I charged a patient for a vaccine in the public hospital I work in.

And for an academic such as his/herself to act as if these medical journals are the end all be all god's word when it comes to medical science is disengenous and laughable. The Lancet is not withou fallibility, controversy, and scandal.

I never assumed the Lancet was infallible. In fact, I thought my posting of tihs article was proof not only of that fallibility, but of their willingness to admit fault. In the end, it still remains much more reliable than any source I've seen you post for, on the rare occasion you post sources.

Originally posted by Maxmars
And it only took twelve years.

May I inquire, has there ever been such a retraction and purging from the medical community on any widely propagated and accepted medical report in the past? Can we expect throngs of physicians to scour the 'facts' delivered by the medical society for other such cases; or is it only the vaccine link that merits such scrutiny?

Papers of all sorts and all levels of notoriety are retracted constantly... You make it sound like some kind of one off conspiracy, or maybe you actually believe that.

My fiance is a doing her doctoral dissertation in medicine and I can tell you from thumbing through her mountains of magazines where all the latest studies are published that there's pages in every one dedicated to retractions.

So, I have to ask, are all the retractions based in conspiracy, or only the ones you disagree with?

Vaccine allergies do exist and until a cause of autism is found nothing should be ruled out. Many parents have seen their own children "change overnight" and have suspected vaccines to be the cause. This may not be medical studies but their opninions should not be ruled out just because those opinions are not sponsored by multi billion dollar drug companies with agendas.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


You want evidence? Come spend 24 hrs. at my house. You very well may believe it then. Before you blow me off as someone who will cling to any theory because I have an axe to grind, I challenge you to read some of my threads. I have a Masters in Nursing and a 13yr. old son who is Autistic. I am qualified to refute this retraction by first hand experience.
I watched a completely healthy baby change before my very eyes at 13 months old, following his MMR injection.

Why do you think they have retracted this article? If scientists will cook the data on "Global Warming", just to get your tax dollars, what makes you think scientists wouldn't do the same on medical data that no less, indicts the government, of knowingly and actively causing harm to these kids?

The number of families seeking retribution is in the thousands. So maybe, just maybe the article was retracted to save the governments ASS!

While I'm at it, you should know that insurance does not cover a diagnosis of Autism! So that is money out of the parents pockets, that is if they want to help their child.

Pax

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

You want evidence? Come spend 24 hrs. at my house. You very well may believe it then. Before you blow me off as someone who will cling to any theory because I have an axe to grind, I challenge you to read some of my threads. I have a Masters in Nursing and a 13yr. old son who is Autistic. I am qualified to refute this retraction by first hand experience.
I watched a completely healthy baby change before my very eyes at 13 months old, following his MMR injection.

While I certainly empathize with how difficult your situation is, I don't feel your "evidence" is really any indication that vaccines cause autism. I don't think it's any coincidence that people claim their child began demonstrating autistic characteristics around 1-2 years of age. This is when symptoms manifest in nearly all autism spectrum disorders, whether there were vaccines given or not. How would you judge antisocial behaviour, lack of eye contact, and poor motor development prior to 1 year?

Why do you think they have retracted this article?

Because ten of the thirteen original authors asked them to. The journal didn't spontaneously decide to retract it, the authors requested the faulty data be retracted. This isn't an uncommon occurence. As another poster mentioned, retraction are featured in nearly every issue of major journals, either because of statistical error or later findings that invalidate a portion of a previously published study.

If scientists will cook the data on "Global Warming", just to get your tax dollars, what makes you think scientists wouldn't do the same on medical data that no less, indicts the government, of knowingly and actively causing harm to these kids?

Because "scientsts" didn't cook the books on global warming. One institution played a few statistical tricks, which is awful, but every other institution studying these topics came to similar, though less dramatics, results.

The number of families seeking retribution is in the thousands. So maybe, just maybe the article was retracted to save the governments ASS!

And the number of families who have no basis for a law suit also number in the thousands. It's interesting to note that every study produced since the nasty rumor began has shown ZERO connection between autism and vaccines. In fact, we have identified several genetic components to autism spectrum disorders, suggesting that there are neurological development checkpoints that aren't being met, due to an underlying genetic or epigenetic issue.

While I'm at it, you should know that insurance does not cover a diagnosis of Autism! So that is money out of the parents pockets, that is if they want to help their child.

I realize this, having seen several autistic patients during my peds rotation back in school. It's a horrible situation, and one of the reasons that I support a single-payer, universal system. There shouldn't be a single condition that falls under a "non-payment" schedule in a person's insurance. The insurance status of autism diagnosis and treatment payments, however, has nothing to do with the link between autism and vaccines, and thus is a moot point in this case.

Originally posted by riley
Vaccine allergies do exist and until a cause of autism is found nothing should be ruled out. Many parents have seen their own children "change overnight" and have suspected vaccines to be the cause. This may not be medical studies but their opninions should not be ruled out just because those opinions are not sponsored by multi billion dollar drug companies with agendas.

Their opinions haven't been ruled out. Several studies have examined this link and have found it to be inconclusive. What more do you want scientists to do?

MMR/Autism Study

MMR/Autism Review article (BMJ)

Another MMR/Autism Study

Those are just a few from the first page of results on Pubmed. There are more, if you're interested. Just search for "MMR autism" on pubmed.gov. If you don't have any journal subscriptions, click "Full Free Text" on the right hand margin and it will filter out any articles/studies that require subscriptions to view.

[edit on 2/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by riley
Vaccine allergies do exist and until a cause of autism is found nothing should be ruled out. Many parents have seen their own children "change overnight" and have suspected vaccines to be the cause. This may not be medical studies but their opninions should not be ruled out just because those opinions are not sponsored by multi billion dollar drug companies with agendas.

Their opinions haven't been ruled out. Several studies have examined this link and have found it to be inconclusive. What more do you want scientists to do?

MMR/Autism Study

MMR/Autism Review article (BMJ)

Another MMR/Autism Study

Those are just a few from the first page of results on Pubmed. There are more, if you're interested. Just search for "MMR autism" on pubmed.gov. If you don't have any journal subscriptions, click "Full Free Text" on the right hand margin and it will filter out any articles/studies that require subscriptions to view.

[edit on 2/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Yet there are still children who have developed austism within 24 hours of recieving their vaccines. It is called a vaccine allergy. You can post a hundred (possibly drug sponsored) studies for all I care that will NOT render the eye witness testimonies of a million parents NA.

Just because one study got retracted (after years of bullying the author btw) does not prove all other vaccines do not trigger an autism reaction. SOMETHING is causing it and for you and others to expect parents to give their child vaccines when their other children have had a reactions is disgusting. You are basically saying "take the risk if your kids becomes disabled or dies thats just too bad it's for the greater good".. yeah it's too bad if it is YOUR child that has to take the fall.

Allergic reaction to vaccines do ooccur; some causing injury, some even causing death but the medical community downplay the risks and imply "small minority" means "none".. well at least until a kid dies and then they suddenly backflip doing into damage control saying "but we did warn the parents that there are risks so they can't sue us!." :shk: There are other ingredients that may be responsible.. like geletine or egg. To spread myths that vaccines are safe for everyone is dangerous. Yes not vaccinating children could cause disease epidemics.. but why should the minority get sacrificed?

There is autism, life threatening allergies and other auto immune disorders in my family. If I take that risk and vaccinate my child and they turn autistic the very next day then that would be abuse on my part. In my family catching the disease could be actually safer than taking this preventative. If I do allow people such as yourself to bully or guilt me into vaccinating my child are you going to pick up the pieces if he/she is injured or dies from it? Didn't think so.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Yet there are still children who have developed austism within 24 hours of recieving their vaccines. It is called a vaccine allergy. You can post a hundred (possibly drug sponsored) studies for all I care that will NOT render the eye witness testimonies of a million parents NA.

No one is claiming vaccine allergies exist. However, a multisystem genetic disroder like most austism spectrum disorders is not considered an allergy. A vaccine allergy could be a localized rash, flu-like symptoms, or joint pain, to name a few of the more common examples. These occur occasionally, but are temporary and much less dangerous than the risk of pertusses, mumps, measels, or rubella.

Just because one study got retracted (after years of bullying the author btw)

There were thirteen authors, not one author, and they voluntarily created a letter, signed it, and sent it, asking for retraction of their work. There is no evidence that any of these researchers were bullied. In fact, most have retained the positions they held prior to the publication of this study 12 years ago. Can you provide any information suggesting they were bullied, professionally or otherwise?

does not prove all other vaccines do not trigger an autism reaction.

So, the fact that we haven't 100% pinned down a cause for most autism disorders means it MUST be vaccines by default? That's the most ridiculous jump in logic I've ever heard, and it's dangerous on a public health scale.

SOMETHING is causing it and for you and others to expect parents to give their child vaccines when their other children have had a reactions is disgusting.

The "something" that causes it has been shown to be a genetic factor, as best as we can tell. It's no coincidence that an autistic individual is more likely to have a sibling with autism than someone who doesn't have autism. It's also no coincidence that certain key mutations have been found in large swaths of specific autism disorder populations.

Did you know they have autism in nations where vaccination isn't common or on the same schedule as the United States?

Did you also know that children vaccinated before 18 months and after 18 months have the same diagnosis rate at the same age (18 months)? Why would this be if it were the vaccinations causing autism spectrum disorder?

You are basically saying "take the risk if your kids becomes disabled or dies thats just too bad it's for the greater good".. yeah it's too bad if it is YOUR child that has to take the fall.

No, I'm "basically saying" that basic logic and medical science shows there is no indicated risk of autism spectrum disorders with any known vaccine, and the only risk is likely to be a rash or a few days of flu-like symptoms.

Allergic reaction to vaccines do ooccur; some causing injury, some even causing death but the medical community downplay the risks and imply "small minority" means "none"

I've never heard a colleague express it this way. It's always explained to the parent that a small number (less than 5%) of children have SOME sort of reaction, and less than 1% of this 5% is severe. That is what the current Mortality/Morbidity and Vaccine Safety Datalink informtation supports.

.. well at least until a kid dies and then they suddenly backflip doing into damage control saying "but we did warn the parents that there are risks so they can't sue us!."

I've never seen a child die from a vaccine (and I would put a large amount of money on you not having seen it either), so I can't attest to the attitudes fo the medical professionals in that case.

There are other ingredients that may be responsible.. like geletine or egg.

Gelatin has no negative effects in the human body. In fact, it's very similar to collagen and elastin in the human body. Usually, your digestive system strips it down and uses the spare parts. The rest of the breakdown product is water (gelatin is a hydrated gel).

As for egg, there are a few vaccines that incorporate egg protein, sure. That could certainly cause an anaphylactic response in children with egg allergies. However, those allergies don't typically exist at 18months of age, as you have few IgE-mast cells capable of responding to an allergen in that manner. Again, no real risk there until you're older, and would already know you have an egg allergy.

To spread myths that vaccines are safe for everyone is dangerous.

I don't think spreading supported, true information is dangerous at all. Spreading unfounded fear and distrust absolutely is, though.

There is autism, life threatening allergies and other auto immune disorders in my family. If I take that risk and vaccinate my child and they turn autistic the very next day then that would be abuse on my part.

Well then it's a darn good thing that no children have ever "turned autistic" from a vaccine.

In my family catching the disease could be actually safer than taking this preventative. If I do allow people such as yourself to bully or guilt me into vaccinating my child are you going to pick up the pieces if he/she is injured or dies from it? Didn't think so.

If your child inherits the autistic mutations, then certainly, I would be more than happy to help manage their disease, as far as it is withing my training and capabilities. If, however, you were to come into my clinic screeching that I made your child "turn autistic" with my "dangerous vaccine", I would probably ask that you explain why you think the vaccine was the problem, and then I would show you the actual research on the disorder, which you seem to be sorely lacking in.

If you'll notice, I have provided several well-reviewed studies demonstrating no link between autism and MMR. You have provided nothing but anecdotes. Before you post again, I would prefer if you would provide some sort of evidence other than "well, I saw..." or "in MY experience...".




[edit on 2/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by riley

Yet there are still children who have developed austism within 24 hours of recieving their vaccines. It is called a vaccine allergy. You can post a hundred (possibly drug sponsored) studies for all I care that will NOT render the eye witness testimonies of a million parents NA.

No one is claiming vaccine allergies exist.

Incorrect. No one is claming that they don't.. it is established FACT that they do and parents are warned about the "small risk" of death/injury before their child is given the injection. When the injection kills the kid they say "but we said there was a risk.." so they don't get sued. Unfortunately there's nothing illegal about bullying parents into vaccinating.

However, a multisystem genetic disroder like most austism spectrum disorders is not considered an allergy.

Not all kinds of autism have a been shown to have a genetic link.

A vaccine allergy could be a localized rash, flu-like symptoms, or joint pain, to name a few of the more common examples. These occur occasionally, but are temporary and much less dangerous than the risk of pertusses, mumps, measels, or rubella.

Death and severe disability happen with vaccine allergies occasionally as well. Saying something is rare is little consolation to grieving parents who just happen to be unlucky enough to be that statistical minority. AGAIN In MY family there is more risk having the vaccines than there is actually catching the disease.

hang on.. I said that in my last post yet you ignored that and tried the "severe side effects are rare so it's an accepotable risk for the good of society" argument yet again. You even said no-one is claiming vaccine allergies exist when it is PROVEN FACT that they do exist. It is clear you don't have a clue as to what your talking about and are only parroting pro-drug conmpany propoganda.

When vaccines have 0% dangers then maybe then I'll consider exposing my children to the risk but for now I will look before I leap. What you ask is the same as force feeding children with possible nut allergies peanut butter sandwiches.


[edit on 3-2-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
Not all kinds of autism have a been shown to have a genetic link.

And no forms of autism have been shown to have a vaccine link. Interesting.

Also, I should note, I made a typo. My first post should have read "no one claims vaccine allergies DON'T exist". Clearly, they do, as I explained in the rest of my post. Sorry for the typo.

Death and severe disabilty happen with vaccine allergies occasionally as well. Saying something is rare is little consolation to grieving parents who just happen to be unlucky enough to be that statistical minority.

There is also a risk of death with driving in a car. Do you avoid automobiles? There is a risk of death with all medications given after a heart attack. If you have one, would you prefer the doctor stand silently and watch you die?

AGAIN In MY family there is more risk having the vaccines than there is actually catching the disease.

False.

hang on.. I said that in my last post yet you ignored that and tried the "severe side effects are rare so it's an accepotable risk for the good of society" argument yet again.

I never made that argument. I was refuting your statement about doctors not informing parents of the risk. Please read my posts and stop cherry-picking words.

You even said no-one is claiming vaccine allergies exist when it is PROVEN FACT that they do exist. It is clear you don't have a clue as to what your talking about and are only parroting pro-drug conmpany propoganda.

See my note above about my typo. Additionally, even WITH the typo, you would note that I discuss vaccine allergies several times, and even give examples of them. Anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension would have noticed the contradication and assumed it was a typo or poor-wording, or I at least pointed out the contradiction. It seems your fear-mongering has blinded you to logic.

When vaccines have 0% dangers then maybe then I'll consider exposing my children to the risk.

Nothing in life has 0% risk of harm. You could be struck by a car crossing the street. You could catch influenza by hugging your child. You could get an electric shock plugging in your toaster.

How awful it must be to live your life in constant fear of the improbable.

What you ask is the same as force feeding children with nut allergies peanut butter sandwhiches.

That's a grossly incomparable analogy. Giving someone with a known allergy a dose of allergen is horrible. Giving someone a vaccine which has been demonstrated NOT to produce autism spectrum disorders, and carries a small risk of injury and a guaranteed risk of disease immunity is quite different.

I think the problem is that TPTB are trying really, really hard to "sell" the idea that their vaccines are harmless, and this old article is ammo to the contrary. So it had to go.

They could have simply said, "well, that was then, but modern research has proved it false". But then they would need to supply the proof of their claim, which obviously, they simply don't have.

And this explains perfectly why so many doctors go along with the scam, and won't speak what they truly think:

The council is now considering whether Wakefield is guilty of serious professional misconduct. A positive finding could cause him to lose his medical practice.

[edit on 3/2/10 by NuclearPaul]

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
I think the problem is that TPTB are trying really, really hard to "sell" the idea that their vaccines are harmless, and this old article is ammo to the contrary. So it had to go.

They could have simply said, "well, that was then, but modern research has proved it false". But then they would need to supply the proof of their claim, which obviously, they simply don't have.

And this explains perfectly why so many doctors go along with the scam, and won't speak what they truly think:

The council is now considering whether Wakefield is guilty of serious professional misconduct. A positive finding could cause him to lose his medical practice.

[edit on 3/2/10 by NuclearPaul]

Any evidence or source for your claims?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
That's a grossly incomparable analogy. Giving someone with a known allergy a dose of allergen is horrible. Giving someone a vaccine which has been demonstrated NOT to produce autism spectrum disorders, and carries a small risk of injury and a guaranteed risk of disease immunity is quite different.

Again vacines have NOT been proven to not cause autism.. if it had been we would know what causes autism. Thousands of families have watched vaccines trigger autism within 48 hours of their kids recieving the jab.

Guess what doctors call that? Coincidence!

Smokers getting lung cancer was also deemed coincidence by doctors too. Mobile phones causing brain cancer is also called coincience. Hormone replacement therapy causing breast cancer was called coincidence. We already have plenty of evidence that studies never find all possible negative side effects of a drug. I personally believe many of these kids are suffering from vaccine allergies so that means they are not just a small minority of victims but an epidemic of allergy induced autism.

Besides which the "only a small minority get severe reactions so it's worth the risk" is not a valid argument as that small minority is entitled to protection as well. Post all the links you want THEY ARE LIEING or are getting their science wrong.. there are far too many kids who turned autistic straight after the jab to be dismissed on coincidence. People will only swallow crap for so long before they realise it tastes bad.

Shall we look at autism rates among unvaccinated? (Amish) Oh thats coincidence too!

[edit on 3-2-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Again vacines have NOT been proven to not cause autism.. if it had been we would know what causes autism.

Knowing what DOES cause something and knowing what DOESN'T are two different things. I personally don't know what causes ball lightning. However, I DO know that is has nothing to do with the concentration of salmon in the north Pacific.

Thousands of families have watched vaccines trigger autism within 48 hours of their kids recieving the jab.

No, they haven't. Correlation is not causation. Seeing an event occur within a given time frame doesn't link it to any given event in that timeframe. Repeated studies at universities around the world, both public and private, have shown ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION between ANY vaccine and ANY autism spectrum disorder.

Are you ever going to post any evidence for your claims, like I have, or are you just going to keep posting sweeping accusations and anecdotes?

Smokers getting lung cancer was also deemed coincidence by doctors

Another lie. Doctors wouldn't say there was a link until the evidence was in. Studies were performed, they demonstrated a link, and doctors followed suit. In the case of vaccines, the evidence has NOT shown a link.

Mobile phones causing brain cancer is also called coincience.

That's because there is little evidence to support that link. I've seen two studies which shows borderline correlation, and we're waiting for further studies.

Hormone replacement therapy causing breast cancer was called coincidence.

Again, another lie. Estrogen has been known to increase the chance of breast cancer for quite some time. I've never seen or heard of a physician claiming it is mere coincidence once the studies were performed. Again, similar studies were performed to see if there was a link between vaccines and autism, and there are none.

We already have plenty of evidence that studies never find all possible negative side effects of a drug.

Source, please.

I personally believe many of these kids are suffering from vaccine allergies so that means they are not just a small minority of victims but an epidemic of allergy induced autism.

Source, please.

Besides which the "only a small minority get severe reactions so it's worth the risk" is not a valid argument as that small minority is entitled to protection as well.

I never made that argument. I don't see why you continue to put those words in my mouth.

Post all the links you want THEY ARE LIEING or are getting their science wrong..

Hahaha, of COURSE they're lying or wrong, because YOU don't agree with them right? It must be lovely to live in your world, beginning with a CONCLUSION and forcing the data to fit it. You know what we call those people? Bad scientists.

there are far too many kids who turned autistic after the jab to be dismissed on coincidence.

Source, please.

Shall we look at the autism rates among non vaccinated? (Amish) Oh thats coincidence to!

Per Dr. Strauss at Combating Autism from Within

The idea that the Amish do not vaccinate their children is untrue,” says Dr. Kevin Strauss, MD, a pediatrician at the CSC. “We run a weekly vaccination clinic and it’s very busy.” He says Amish vaccinations rates are lower than the general population’s, but younger Amish are more likely to be vaccinated than older generations.

Strauss also sees plenty of Amish children showing symptoms of autism. “Autism isn’t a diagnosis - it’s a description of behavior. We see autistic behaviors along with seizure disorders or mental retardation or a genetic disorder, where the autism is part of a more complicated clinical spectrum.” Fragile X syndrome and Retts is also common among the clinic’s patients.

Strauss said the clinic treats “syndromic autism”, where autism as part of a more complicated clinical spectrum that can include mental retardation, chromosomal abnormalities, unusual facial features, and short stature, as well as Fragile X syndrome. “We see quite a few Amish children with Fragile X,” he said.

...Strauss says he doesn’t see “idiopathic autism” at the clinic, which he defines as children with average or above average IQs who display autistic behavior. “My personal experience is we don’t see a lot of Amish children with idiopathic autism. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist, only that we aren’t seeing them at the clinic.”

He says a child in the general population is more likely to have autism detected early and to receive a diagnosis than an Amish child. “Amish child may not be referred to an MD or psychologist because the child is managed in the community, where they have special teachers,” he says. “We know autism when we see it, but we don’t go actively into the Amish community and screen for ASD.”

Strauss adds that the Amish have a high prevalence of genetic risk factors and are protected from others. The low rate of idiopathic autism “might have more to do what genetic structure of population than lifestyle, environment or diet.”

[edit on 2/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]