The inclusion criteria was extremely narrow and contradicts the study’s title “Vaccines”, which by presumption include the full compliment of the 71 doses of vaccine prior to 18 years of age in the United States (CDC, 2014). The study only looked at thimerosal containing, and MMR vaccines, which excluded; rotavirus, haemophilus influenzae type b (HIB), pneumococcal, poliovirus, partial influenza doses, varicella, hepatitis A, human papillomavirus (HPV), and parital meningococcal. The old studies did include some of the Hepatitis B, and DTP, which included cumulative Hg dosage, and the MMR, however left out the subsequent nine vaccines. Further, these vaccines are only recommended among the pediatric population in the United States, additional vaccines are recommended among the broader adult, and immigrant populations. ASD diagnosis had to be included in the research study in correlation with the MMR vaccine and cumulative mercury (Hg) dosage. This study repeatedly speaks of "cumulative mercury dosage", meaning that there was not a comparison between vaccinated verses unvaccinated. They simply studied individuals that had some mercury compared with other groups that had more. For example, smoking a few cigarettes a day, compared to those that smoke a pack a day shows no correlation to lung cancer, therefore smoking is safe. This was their inclusion criteria in a nutshell...
http://autismrawdata.net/1/post/2014/05/more-pseudo-science-vaccines-do-not-cause-autism-study.html
This study is ripped apart, and proven another HOAX...
WHETHER or not to vaccinate children has sparked fiery debate among parents for decades.
Many parents feel immunisation is unnatural and there are prevalent fears about a link between vaccination and autism.
But a new report led by the University of Sydney appears to have settled the argument.
A review of available data from around the world has found that there is no link between vaccination and the development of autism or autism spectrum disorders.
The study examined seven sets of data involving more than 1.25 million children and concluded that there was no evidence to support a relationship between common vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough and the development of autism.
The paper’s senior author, Associate Professor Guy Eslick from the Sydney Medical School, said he was inspired to look into the issue after watching some documentaries on the medical debate.
“I thought, surely someone has put this data together. I searched; there was nothing,” Prof Eslick said."
http://autismrawdata.net/1/post/2014/05/more-pseudo-science-vaccines-do-not-cause-autism-study.html
This study is ripped apart, and proven another HOAX...
WHETHER or not to vaccinate children has sparked fiery debate among parents for decades.
Many parents feel immunisation is unnatural and there are prevalent fears about a link between vaccination and autism.
But a new report led by the University of Sydney appears to have settled the argument.
A review of available data from around the world has found that there is no link between vaccination and the development of autism or autism spectrum disorders.
The study examined seven sets of data involving more than 1.25 million children and concluded that there was no evidence to support a relationship between common vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough and the development of autism.
The paper’s senior author, Associate Professor Guy Eslick from the Sydney Medical School, said he was inspired to look into the issue after watching some documentaries on the medical debate.
“I thought, surely someone has put this data together. I searched; there was nothing,” Prof Eslick said."
OH. and is hE Slick
The main factor that these 'medical scientists' do not seem willing to acknowledge is that many non-vaccinating professionals and parents (most of them tertiary educated) do not place much value on their 'peer reviewed studies' which are largely funded by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.
Sure, this 'study' claims to not be funded by drug companies, but it is clearly a collation of data sourced from studies which are. Would the study (or indeed any) be published in a peer reviewed medical journal, were it to find that there was a potential link? No, of course not.
Did any of the studies examined compare the health outcomes of a decent sample of completely unvaccinated children with completely vaccinated children? No, because such a study does not exist. Such a study would never receive the funding from drug companies, nor would it receive approval for publishing. Numerous brave doctors who have raised their concerns regarding adverse reactions have been silenced and stripped of their license to practice medicine. Newsflash! ALL drugs have side effects (see the package insert within vaccines, which include but are not limited to seizures, paralysis and encephalitis). The world is not black and white. Be reasonable, and open your mind and hearts to the increasing number of educated and responsible parents out there who have witnessed first-hand the debilitating side effects of vaccines in their children, and have the benefit of hindsight and close companionship to make true comparisons in their child which 'science' cannot. By simply continuing to stubbornly assert that you are right and millions of others are wrong because 'the studies say so' is the height of arrogance and intellectual pride, and a large part of the reason why increasing numbers of people have lost respect for the white coat and are abandoning the western model of medicine all together.
The main factor that these 'medical scientists' do not seem willing to acknowledge is that many non-vaccinating professionals and parents (most of them tertiary educated) do not place much value on their 'peer reviewed studies' which are largely funded by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.
Sure, this 'study' claims to not be funded by drug companies, but it is clearly a collation of data sourced from studies which are. Would the study (or indeed any) be published in a peer reviewed medical journal, were it to find that there was a potential link? No, of course not.
Did any of the studies examined compare the health outcomes of a decent sample of completely unvaccinated children with completely vaccinated children? No, because such a study does not exist. Such a study would never receive the funding from drug companies, nor would it receive approval for publishing. Numerous brave doctors who have raised their concerns regarding adverse reactions have been silenced and stripped of their license to practice medicine. Newsflash! ALL drugs have side effects (see the package insert within vaccines, which include but are not limited to seizures, paralysis and encephalitis). The world is not black and white. Be reasonable, and open your mind and hearts to the increasing number of educated and responsible parents out there who have witnessed first-hand the debilitating side effects of vaccines in their children, and have the benefit of hindsight and close companionship to make true comparisons in their child which 'science' cannot. By simply continuing to stubbornly assert that you are right and millions of others are wrong because 'the studies say so' is the height of arrogance and intellectual pride, and a large part of the reason why increasing numbers of people have lost respect for the white coat and are abandoning the western model of medicine all together.
