Wow. Maybe the dogmatics have relaxed a bit and realize their patrolling of this board shutting down any voices of dissent is counterproductive. Debate should be balanced and encouraged - not dismissed knee jerkingly. This board has raised suspicions in me for a while as it's just too one sided and seems to be policed by pro vaxxers. That's why I linked this article.
I read this blog about vaccines and autism, and it makes total sense to me.
There is autism and there is vaccine damage, which is lumped together in with autism because of similar symptoms. There are parents whose DC are badly affected by vaccines, but they are effectively silenced by the "vaccines don't cause autism" voice, which means any concerns are dismissed and they are considered conspiracy theorists.
From Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, 7th February 2017:
" And among those uncertainties are the known and unknown side effects that each vaccine carries. Contrary to the suggestion—generally implicit—that vaccines are risk free (and therefore why would anyone ever resist official recommendations), the reality is that officially sanctioned written medical information on vaccines is—just like drugs—filled with information about common, uncommon, and unconfirmed but possible harms.1011 Although MMR and autism have dominated journalistic coverage of this issue, and journalists have correctly characterized the scientific consensus that rejects any such link, most journalists have insufficiently acknowledged the fact that bodies such as the Institute of Medicine have “found convincing evidence of 14 health outcomes—including seizures, inflammation of the brain, and fainting—that can be caused by certain vaccines, although these outcomes occur rarely.”12 And for 135 other adverse events investigated, the committee concluded “the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship” with vaccines. Medical journalists have an obligation to the truth. But journalists must also ensure that patients come first, which means a fresh approach to covering vaccines. It’s time to listen—seriously and respectfully—to patients’ concerns, not demonize them."
"Debate should be balanced and encouraged"... By which you mean that you don't want any "dogmatic pro-vaccers" coming on and disagreeing with you? Because providing better arguments backed up by evidence is "shutting down voices of dissent"? That globalresearch site is a load of shite! Have you seen their other articles I'm not going to pretend to know for certain that vacccines don't cause autism or similar conditions - but I do know that after years of research and scrutiny, there is still no clear evidence that they do. There is, however, proven correlation between age groups that were inadequately immunnised and outbreaks of diseases.