They use the reported events to then go out and study the relationships between vaccines and the reported adverse reactions, and I've already linked to a document from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lists dozens of studies showing no causal relationship between vaccines and autism. To date, outside of Wakefield's fraudulent work, there's been no scientific study showing evidence that vaccines cause autism; NOT ONE.
The Italian case was long ago debunked as essentially a hoax by a questionable court, and I'm surprise to hear it brought up again:
Court Rulings Don't Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link - Forbes
The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article is the 2012 finding of a local Italian court that a child was diagnosed with autism a year after receiving an MMR. The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper and the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari, it seems, has written a book on how vaccines cause autism and peddles an autism “cure” that he’s devised.
Italian courts, provincial or otherwise, are not known for basing their rulings in science. They are, after all, part of the system that led to a manslaughter conviction of six scientists for not predicting the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, disregarding completely the obvious fact that such predictions are not, in fact, scientifically possible. In a similar way, the Italian court that made the MMR-autism ruling–the centerpiece of this latest “courts confirm” tripe–ignored completely the science made available to it and focused almost solely on the retracted Wakefield paper and a physician with a COI in making its decision. A decision that is, by the way, under appeal.
______
What is your stance on the government requiring everyone purchase medical insurance?
I think it's statist garbage, and unconstitutional.
Why is it okay for the government to demand to all of us to subject ourselves to a medical procedure?
You don't have to get vaccinated if you don't want to. If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, you can home school them. Taking proper precautions to make sure that children are not at risk for spreading harmful infectious diseases, in light of the evidence which is overwhelming and one-sided towards the safety of immunizations, is not only reasonable but responsible.
Are your answer logically consistent?
Of course they are. Are yours? Using your logic, on what basis could you deny a kid with the measles entrance to public school? Don't his parents pay property taxes too? What would be your justification for quarantining someone with Ebola? Would you even support a quarantine?
Is is it consistent with liberty to decide for oneself and their children if the with consent to a medical procedure?
State governments are well within their Constitutional authority to require basic health and safety measures for the 50 million children who attend public school. You're perfectly within your right to leave your children defenseless against deadly diseases, but you cannot pass that risk on to other children. That isn't liberty.