Tachyon Shield wrote:
Claiming the link to Autism and other neurological damage was proven false is false itself. You are choosing the words of one bunch of scientists over another bunch.
From the original study, published in the Lancet
"Interpretation. We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.
environmental triggers'. The original paper said that there might
be a causal link between autism and the MMR vaccine, not that there was one for certain.
In 2004, ten of the thirteen scientists who carried out the original study made a formal retraction.
"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.
This year the Sunday Times discovered that Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who ran the study, had received more than four hundred thousand pounds from lawyers trying to prove that vaccines are unsafe. A legal aid fund, attempting a lawsuit against pharmaceutical manufacturers, paid nearly three and a half million pounds in an attempt to find suitable evidence.
Furthermore, the British General Medicine Council has begun an investigation into Wakefield. There are two grounds. The first, based on claims by journalist Brian Deer, are of serious professional misconduct, involving totally unnecessary surgical procedures that in one case caused life threatening injuries.
In addition, evidence has arose indicating that during the study Wakefield suppressed and falsified data to better support the results he wanted.
So it's not really a case of "choosing the words of one bunch of scientists over another bunch". It's a case of deciding who is more reliable.
On the one hand you have the vast majority of scientists. Yes, many work for 'big pharm' and could conceivably be covering themselves. But many others are independent and have no such motivation. Included in their ranks are ten of the original group, who have removed their support after the many flaws and conflicts of interest came to light.
In the other group, you have a tiny minority, the greatest of which is known to be on the take, and suspected of unethical proceedings and scientific fraud.