“No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.”

No studies are conducted (for this bogus reason of “ethics” laughable coming from ex-Merck), therefore no conclusion either way.

This “controversy” is laughable to me, if the (true) data is made available, a high-school kid can give great insight to it is 10 min (and for free). At least a necessary condition for the link. This is not rocket science, you see this all time, when you read for example “eating 1 serving of veggies /day decrease the risk of heart attack by 10%” (making it up).

We use probability theory. Let the variables A=”autism diagnosed at age x”, V=”vaccinated”. Then the problem is to calculate:
P( A | V ) versus P(A | non V) , where P( A | V ) means “probability of subject having A given he/she is V” . We use the entire US kid population under age x as sample population.

Using conditional probability theory:
P(A|V) = P( A and V) / P(V) and similarly P(A| non V) = P(A and non V) / P(non V).

We just need the stats data. Now P(V) is known (probably the most tracked data by the gvt). Say if the vaccination rate is at 80% for some year, then P(V)=0.8 and P(non V)=0.2.
Now the missing data, is the rate of (A and V) and the rate of (A and non V), which now we know we cannot have for “ethical reasons”.

For example, if we find out that P(A and V) = 0.3 and P(A and non V) = 0.1, then
P(A|V) = 0.4/0.8= 0.375 while P(A|non V) =0.1/0.2=0.5, which would mean that you are less likely to get A (autism) when you vaccinate then when you don’t by a ratio of
37.5% to 50% . In this (fictitious) case, your odds of staying autism-free is to vaccinate.

Comments?

i think it was “removed” in 1999, not 1992.

Mercury in vaccines is a) not toxic b) not in all but a few vaccines and c) in those vacines in which it is still used there is ALWAYS a way of getting the vaccine without mercury.

I personally have no financial tie to the vaccination manufacturers. I have read ALL of the original research on this. And I am certain that the mercury in the form it has been useded does not get into human tissues, and I’m certain that the fact that when mercury stopped being used in vaccines autism rates did not drop at all. I am absolutely certain that you are wrong in what you are claiming.

And, I warn you, this blog (the one you are reading now … my blog, not your blog, but his blog) is NOT a platform for vaccine denialism or woo. So you will now go away. Readers who are interested in knowing more about this issue can start by comparing your comment and mine, then entering their questions into the Skeptical Search Engine:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/03/the_skeptical_search_engine.php

where you will find woo-free information from several excellent sources.

Pamela, you are doing something that is harming other people. But somehow I suspect you don’t lose much sleep at night. Someday maybe you’ll realize the damage you are doing.

The fact remains, those who supposedly “prove” autism (and a number of other conditions) are not related to vaccinations are those who have a STRONG financial tie to the vaccination manufacturers. They have been shown to falsify information and manipulate studies to show their agenda. If they admit that vaccinations cause harm, they would lose BILLIONS — for some reason, most cannot put two & two together but those ho research it can and THAT is why “it” will not die.

Hahahahaha!!! But, of course!

The rise in autism after mercury preservative was removed completely disproves that hypotheseis, yet it Will Not Die.