Stata: I am stil unsure as to what part of "Wakefield et al never said that mmr causes autism" you do not understand.
It has NEVER been said that mmr: a) causes autism or b) is responsible for the rise in autism.
You blithely claim that there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. Maybe you should get on to the Special Masters who have recognised in an Omnibus case that vaccines played a role in Hannah Poling developing symtoms of autism and tell them that they are wrong.
You should quickly get on to the experts at the Cochrane Review and tell them that they are mistaken too!


The fact is that there is a building body of evidence that links vaccines and autism. No doubt if funding was not cut off and researchers weren't witchunted for investigating MMR, there would be even more evidence.


There are peer reviewed studies, clinical evidence and huge amounts of anecdotal evidence. Also there is the fact that there is a rise in ASD that we have no other credible explanation for. A rise in ASD cases, that in the US in particular, follows the rise in the number of vaccines given.
Then there is the fact that some autistic children's condition improves when they follow treatments that target vaccine damage. 

Currently there is a doctor (Dr Yazbak) who is trying to find one single child who presents a case of regressive autism with autistic enterocolitis who is unvaccinated, to date he has not found a single case.


So far the government and the medical establishment are relying on epidemiological studies to demonstrate that MMR does not trigger autism in susceptible children. All of the studies produced so far have been criticised for either serious problems of conflict of interest and/or methodological flaws that render the study useless. The much touted Taylor study, the Danish study and Fombonne's studies are all high profile examples of this. All these studies were declared as definitive yet they are all now discredited.
There comes a time when one is obliged to ask if these experts are incompetent since they seem curiously unable to design an unflawed study (unlikely) or if they are in fact extemely competent at manipulating statistics to achieve results that suit their own ends.


The famous 2005 Cochrane Report only examined 31 studies out of a roughly 5000 that were submitted. The Review has been accused of discarding papers that that show MMR in a bad light. BTW the Report did not examine Dr Wakefield's work, which still stands unchallanged and which so far no-one has discredited. Hence no doubt the need for the extensive smear campaign to try and ruin Dr Wakefield's reputation.


There is evidence that the safety of MMR warrants further investigation, yet that government keeps trying to draw a line under the entire subject.
The government also seems curiously unwilling to examine children who are suspected of being damaged by MMR and to perform a study which directly replicates Dr Wakefield's. All this just doesn't look good and it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.


Wakefield's work has, of course been replicated - in small scale studies, around the world. But you, ad others, will no doubt continue to look the other way, because you do not like what it says and the implications of this.