they might

but i need to see the website

That's what I thought too, but I never saw anything else. https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/

>Myth #1: Vaccines cause autism.
The widespread fear that vaccines increase risk of autism originated with a 1997 study published by Andrew Wakefield, a British surgeon. The article was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, suggesting that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was increasing autism in British children.

The paper has since been completely discredited due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license and the paper was retracted from The Lancet.

thats a basic site that i see no reason to adress it in full

i was thinking like a formal site where they adress the papers
maybe the site itself where teh papers are posted

If you read further they say that the thing has taken seriously and addressed, and they did other studies

dont expect it to go into depth on that site

Appeal to authority again, they never mentioned what the further studies or papers that they conducted were. No specifications. Look at it from a neutral POV @ksucc 🌙

If you ask the doctor who did the study they will probably send all the things but we don’t know who is

@ksucc 🌙 You basically agree to those terms because someone said so and not the evidence presented?

Well There is

Pretty sure not every doctor is aware of every study that has taken place.

Where is it?

There is an article

Listed on that page

That article is for a whole other subject, it doesn't refute the anti-vaxxer main paper.

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf
It proves that vaccines don’t cause autism

And the report http://nationalacademies.org/HMD/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

I mean, in the scientific community, if you can prove that a theory is flawed, this can justify why they said there are procedural errors in the first theory, also ethical violations

I just looked over the paper, ''The initial concerns that vaccines may cause autism were related to the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine1 and
thimerosal-containing vaccines.2 In 2004, a comprehensive review by the Institute of Medicine concluded that the
evidence favors rejection of possible causal associations between each of these vaccine types and autism.3''

The 3rd source leads to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25344/

Can you tell me where in the third source where it presents evidence against Wakefield?

Yes , 2004

The second study is from 2011

Eventually the first one had flaws in it, they did the study again in 2011

The most recent overcomes the older

Where is the evidence in the study made in 2011? All it talks is about the conclusive of the study without showing the whole study.

The 2004 study has more merit to it since it shows everything.

If you read the article you sent, the report is from 2011 and the study is from 2013 (not 2011 my bad).

The children of the study are aged 6-13 because for a study to be released must have passed 10 years

So the study from 2004 must have been done in the 90’

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ This is a better source to list next time

I can't even find Wakefield paper to contrast and compare it with the refutations. They removed his paper and there's no archive of it sigh

Nvm here it is https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

It is said is retracted?

And published in 1998

Well, I’m not a doc

I have to go now bye

''scientific misrepresentation (they reported that their sampling was consecutive when, in fact, it was selective). This retraction was published as a small, anonymous paragraph in the journal, on behalf of the editors.[8]'' All the children had the same conditions according to Wakefield so the selective part is false. '' 12 children (mean age 6 years [range 3–10], 11 boys) were referred to a paediatric gastroenterology unit with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhoea and abdominal pain.'' What I do agree is that the sample size is too small but I doubt they would ever let an independent doctor lead his anti-vaxx study on a fair sample size.

'' One child (child four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, after which his development slowed (confirmed by professional assessors). No association was made with the vaccine at this time. He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation. Child nine received measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at 16 months. At 18 months he developed recurrent antibioticresistant otitis media and the first behavioural symptoms, including disinterest in his sibling and lack of play. '' I don't see any refutations of this in the refuting paper against Wakefield