How the fuck can injecting mercury, aluminum, live viruses, as well as other inflammatory substances NOT have a toxic effect on the body and brain? There are NO INDEPENDENT STUDIES covering the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. I am sure you believe there are though, so I challenge you to find ONE study that does this. For every other drug on the market this type of testing is required, yet there are none for vaccines. I wonder why that is... Have fun.
As far as your "actual paper" that is just an abstract. I am not sure how you expect me to honestly review the study based on a synopsis. Furthermore, I never said Wakefield was right, just that he did not commit fraud. I believe the subject deserves further study. As real scientists know, the studies should never be over because science is never settled. You on the other hand are of the belief that the subject should just be ignored.
I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines.
TBH I thought I was linking to the full paper, but you're right, only the abstract is available to view. However, you get an idea of the study just from the abstract, it includes the statistical results, and the huge sample size (which I think trumped any other study to date). It actually used an extra variable: It looked at children with older siblings that had autism, and compared the chance of the younger children getting autism. Here is the conclusion:
In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD.
Yes, Wakefield was fraudulent in his Lancet paper. He did not divulge huge conflicts of interest with his sample. Even if he wasn't fraudulent, it was still a shitty study with a tiny sample size. It was also of a case-control design, which is easier to perform than a cohort study, but nowhere near as effective for finding the cause of disease: Here's a link which explains the difference:
http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/cohort-and-case-control-studies-pros-and-cons/As for your question about a study regarding the safety of vaccines, many have been done. Here's a document with a big-ass list:
https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdfAnyhow, we aren't talking about whether all injected vaccines are safe. They probably are, but we are specifically investigating whether a link between MMR vaccines and autism exists. I've shown, with studies that are far more statistically significant than the ones posted by believers in the autism link, that it's bullshit. Not only that, but I have shown specifically what was wrong with said studies. Now it's your turn to poke holes in my sources.
Good luck.
"Getting an idea" of the study doesn't allow me to critically examine it. It would be like if I made a conclusion about a book, handed you the first page of cliff notes, then asked you to refute my point, it is completely disingenuous.
As I already stated, the Wakefield paper NEVER MADE THOSE CONCLUSIONS, all he did was suggest the subject needs further study. Others made those conclusions for him, you can not attribute that to him. As MakingMoneyHoney stated, the CDC was forced to admit they purposely destroyed related evidence showing very clearly there is an agenda at play in an attempt to destroy Wakefield's career for daring to suggest the subject needs further study.
Additionally your huge list of studies did not include one single study about the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. Of course it is a nice way to try to waste my time digging thru reams of studies you throw at me in bulk as if they all support your argument. Furthermore if I did point out some flaw in any of the studies, because you referenced a giant list, all you have to do is say "oh no I didn't mean that study... I mean this one..." giving you a perfect excuse to not have to back up your claims one bit.
NOTE: for those of you who are actually looking for real scientific information regarding vaccine safety (or lack there of), I suggest you listen to all parts of this presentation by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, it is quite informative.
For everyone else, don't bother watching it, because we all know you don't care enough to actually dedicate that much time to listening because your minds are made up and you are too lazy to examine the situation critically anyway even if you could understand it with your complete ignorance of scientific method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6UThe medical industry has plenty of room for improvement, stop supporting the myth that it is infallible:
http://rblaw.net/medical-negligence-3rd-leading-cause-death-united-states/In Dr. Wakefield's own words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40suCKnjbIWE ARE talking about injected vaccines being unsafe, that is the WHOLE POINT of this thread. I realize it is inconvenient to your bias towards support of vaccines, but that does not magically make it irrelevant.
If there are SO MANY independent scientific studies conducted regarding the human safety and efficacy of injected vaccines, you should have NO PROBLEM citing JUST ONE of them. If you are so completely in the right you should have no problem at all finding one and standing behind it. This is a CRITICAL POINT, because it demonstrates very clearly that THE SCIENCE NEVER EXISTED, and this is nothing but the marketing of a dangerous product which is MANDATORY.