Wow! you took the words right out of my mouth! What I mean is your point # 5 has been a main pet peeve of mine for years. When patients ask me, I often say something to the effect that you describe: "All parties to the debate admit that there are no studies with an unvaccinated control group that show that the national vaccine schedule is safe. Defenders of the status quo admit this as a point of pride, arguing that a proper double blind RCT would be unethical because they already know (based on experience) that vaccines are safe. But at the same time they argue that RCTs are the gold standard and should guide all other decisions in medicine. It creates an unusual spectacle whereby autism advocacy groups are demanding double blind RCTs while mainstream figures in science and medicine are violating their own preferred epistemology by blocking the sorts of studies that could resolve this debate."

The other piece of bias candy is about the reports from parents. I've had enough parents tell me that story such that it trumps any studies out there. That might sound like an appeal to emotion/sentiment. But if you sit with autistic parent after autistic parent and hear their consistent stories of regressions, seizures, etc it's pretty hard to just ignore it. Although, apparently most pediatricians look the parent in the eye and say "has NOTHING to do with the vax!"

Now to be even handed, I'm NOT saying all the autistic kids I've seen the parents reported a regression. And in addition, not every kid who was overtly harmed from the current vaccine schedule got autism. Some got multiple seizures temporally associated. And certainly the vast majority of kids that get vaccinated take no overt harm.

To my mind when you look at the TOTAL context of vaccines; the indemnity, the censorship, shaming, the consistent parents reporting harm following the vaccines, the overall criminal business of medicine/pharma and the lack of a comparative study long term of the two cohorts, it's very hard to confidently recommend vaccines.

On the other hand, I'm SO grateful to El Gato for his ongoing incisive breakdowns. This one too. As usual, the bad kitty has done a great job of breaking down the wheat from the chaff. However, despite his great data breakdown, I just can't shake off the considerations I, Toby and others listed, and think - yup, those vaccines are ALL good. I guess we could say - at least for me - there are just WAY too many confounders to come to a clean conclusion.

I also suspect some of the vaccines may be a net positive. But again, if we aren't actively seeking a comparative long term signal, then how can you REALLY determine vaccine safety.

The issue is particularly ugly because we do not have a society that can divorce itself from the all mighty dollar and prioritize the commons and the health and wellness of it's citizens.

I also agree that it's entirely likely that there are MANY variables that are responsible for the rise in Autism. I think it's entirely likely autism has been spurred by SOME vaccines, various drugs, environmental exposures and the like.

Toby, thanks for your paper - it's awesome. El gato, LOVE what you do!

Peace