That’s right, “kids who got no childhood vaccines were MORE likely to be diagnosed with autism than kids who did get recommended vaccinations.”
The kids most likely to be diagnosed with autism: those with no vaccinations.
The next most likely: kids with some vaccinations, but no MMR.
The least likely: kids with the recommended vaccinations.
“In the current study, researchers examined data on 657,461 children. Kids who got the MMR vaccine were seven percent less likely to develop autism than children who didn’t get vaccinated, researchers report in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Children who had NO childhood vaccinations were 17 percent more likely to be diagnosed with autism than kids who did get recommended vaccinations.”
NOTE: No causation is proved or claimed, and the researchers did not perform statistical tests to weed out the possibility of a spurious relationship. Both the likelihood to get shots and the likelihood of autism my be impacted by an unknown third variable not yet studied. To give a simple layman’s example, suppose eating too many saturated fats could cause autism, and suppose the people who don’t inoculate their children are more likely to eat too many saturated fats. That’s not true (I think), but in such a case, one could not blame the lack of shots for autism even though they appeared to be highly correlated.
This is no surprise.
Many years ago, the original link between autism and vaccinations was found to be a fraud. Not an error, mind you, but a deliberate fraud.
Andrew Wakefields findings have been vindicated many times. It did NOT say vaxxes caused autism. It was about the gut/autism link.
“With all the attacks against de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield by the scavengers of the media, one thing that gets lost is the fact that the findings on which the retraction of his paper and revocation of his medical license were based have been completely overturned. Wakefield is now looking to get his medical license back that the UK’s General Medical Council had taken from him over five years ago.
1) Wakefield’s license remains revoked., and there is no place on earth where he is licensed to practice medicine.
2) The study actually said “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease AND developmental regression in a group of previously normal children.” Wakefield coined the term “autistic enterocolitis.”
3) Although the paper did not actually claim (MMR/autism) or (MMR/gut) causation, Wakefield did in subsequent interviews, and in his application for a patent. “It has now also been shown that use of the MMR vaccine results in pervasive developmental disorder including autism (RBD), in some infants.” That statement is, of course, completely false.
3) There is no medical nor scientific society anywhere which supports any connection between any vaccine and autism. There is not one single peer-reviewed study which supports the theory. (The new one suggests that the incidence of autism was significantly LOWER among those with the recommended vaccines. That study did not however, suggest any causation.)
4) The findings on Wakefield’s issues have NOT been overturned. Two of his fellow researchers were exonerated of the different charges against THEM. The conflict of interest charges against Wakefield remain unrefuted, as do the investigative journalist’s allegations that the paper’s data were falsified.
5) There is, to this day, unrefuted hard evidence against him, especially the falsification of data. When asked about this falsification by Anderson Cooper, Wakefield’s baffling response was that the reporter had not actually talked to the families he had talked to. (???) When Wakefield had a chance to talk to the investigative journalist on camera, he put his hand over the camera and fled.
6) He has sued at various times to restore his reputation. In every case, he has been unsuccessful, and has been forced to pay the court costs of the parties he sued.
Most recently he sued in Texas. After losing before two different judges in the Austin district courts, Wakefield appealed and lost before three judges in the third Texas court of appeals. In December 2014, despite bragging that he would appeal to the Texas supreme court, he quietly abandoned the action.
The evidence in that lawsuit argued:
“Wakefield misrepresented, falsified, concealed and otherwise dishonestly manipulated the terms upon which the research had been carried out, as well as individual patient histories and diagnoses, in order to serve the aims of the speculative litigation he was supporting and his own financial interests and convictions.”
Wakefield’s attorneys argued that the testimony above should be stricken from the record. That motion was denied. Wakefield lost the suit, and lost the appeal.
This is a lengthy summary of the complete case against Wakefield.