I've addressed everything you've said, and debunked all of it, including the Italian court ruling.
You seem to be a two trick pony; you've posted the Italian ruling and mentioning of autism on the CDC's list of reported adverse reactions as evidence with nothing but a cut and paste from some obscure blog and Joe Mercola's site (who is an "osteopath" and quack who peddles homeopathy). Whereas I've provided evidence that the Italian ruling relied on Wakefield's debunked paper and the testimony of one doctor with conflicting interests, and I've explained to you that reported adverse reactions are not evidence of causality.
I've also linked to over 40 studies that show no link between autism, and I gave you a requested link to a study which shows there's no danger in multiple vaccinations with respect to autism risk.
You've provided no evidence whatsoever in kind, and have tried and failed miserably to school me on the Constitution when you don't even have a working knowledge of Federalism.
You claim autism is not one of the risks of autism, but I linked you to a FDA document that listed it as a potential risk. So, evidently, according to your august and undocumented resume were are to believe you but not the FDA. I am not as impressed with you as you are with yourself. Please provide documentation as to why you are more credible that the FDA.
I've already explained this to you, that "reported adverse effects" are not causal side effects; they are things that people reported happened parallel with vaccination. I understand if you're too unsophisticated to understand the difference, but you're royally ignorant if you think that the CDC is actually admitting that vaccines cause autism simply because it was a "reported" adverse reaction.
You just don't understand the difference, and with your limited knowledge on the subject I wouldn't expect you to.
I told you exactly how long(21 pgs) your "study" was. I also ridiculed it as something less than a masters thesis. Perhaps you did not read all 21 pgs of your study enough to comprehend that it did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
You're bordering on sociopathy here; not only did you NOT mention 21 pages, you offered no critique at all in any previous post that addressed the study.
In fact you didn't even acknowledge the study and focused on the direct link to the CDC schedule in the press release, and accused me of not linking to a study but "an abstract with the CDC vaccine guidelines for 2015". It's easy to see that not only did you not read the whole press release, it's unlikely that you even glanced at the study itself.
You didn't provide any feedback, much less ridicule for the study at all, yet now you're claiming a peer reviewed scientific study in the Journal of Pediatrics "did not stand up to scientific scrutiny." Why, because you counted the page numbers?!
For the record, this particular study consists of an abstract, full text, graphs, and references, and was printed in the August 2013 Volume 163, Issue 2 from pages 561–567, so I'm not sure where you dreamed up 21 pages. Just more evidence you didn't read it, even though you're claiming it "does not stand up to scientific scrutiny".
Here, below you'll find 3 more studies showing the safety and effectiveness of the CDC schedule. Feel free to keep embarrassing yourself:
Immunization Policy Development in the United States: The Role of the
Advisor y Committee on Immunization Practices by Jean C. Smith et al.
Annals of Internal Medicine. Januar y 2009. Vol 150: pages 45-49.
http://www.annals.org/content/150/1/45.full.pdf+html.
Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable
Diseases in the United States by Sandra W. Roush et al. Journal of the
American Medical Association. November 14, 2007. Vol. 298: pages
2155-2163. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/298/18/2155.
Rota and Pneumococcus Vaccine Success Stories: Pediatric Emergency
Practitioners Wonder “Where Have the Kids Gone?” by M. McKenna.
Annals of Emergency Medicine. April 2009. Vol 53: pages 23A-25A.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0196-0644/
PIIS0196064409001371.pdf.
I suppose you'll be able to read through these in a few minutes and determine that they "don't pass scientific scrutiny."
Please post your detailed findings, since after reading your highly intricate and revolutionary "texting doesn't cause crashes" example, we're all amazed with your scientific knowledge of biochemistry and biology.