I take the health of my kids seriously, and you obviously don't.
I've intricately debunked every one of your claims. I've not only proved every one of them false with sourced evidence, but I've also showed you have a problem with the truth, as you were claiming to have said things that you didn't say, such as your supposed critique of the Journal of Pediatrics that you never gave.
You've been so thoroughly defeated and decimated by the cold sting of reality that your only option is to try and get in one last insult. But anyone here who possessing standard reading comprehension sees that it's you who've been proven the idiot.
You have not intricately debunked every one of my claim. You falsely claimed that the 2012 Italian decision was based on Wakefield's Study. You linked a Forbes article the said as much, but the court decision(
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/italian-mmr-remini-decision-2012.docx ) does not reference Wakefield's study. Furthermore, Wakefield's research has been vindicated.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/ . So even if it was the reasoning it has been found to be sound.
You have not addressed the 2014 Italian case,
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/01/recent-italian-court-decisions-on-vaccines-and-autism.html
The 2014 decision is here:
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/vaccine-italia-decision.pdfThen of course there is this U.S. case:
[Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007)].
The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.
A couple of scholarly article from The Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia linking rubella and autism:
Chess, S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1, 33-47 (1971).
Chess S. Follow-up report on autism in congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1977;7:69 –81
Ziring PR. Congenital rubella: the teenage years. Pediatr Ann. 1997;6: 762–770
… rubella (congenital rubella syndrome) is one of the few proven causes of autism.” Walter A. Orenstein, M.D. US as Assistant Surgeon General, Director National Immunization Program in a letter to the UK’s Chief Medical Officer 15 February 2002.
These studies are focused autism. There are many other negative side effect to vaccines that could be addressed, not to mention many alternative reasons people chose not to vaccinate. You, however, are incapable of empathizing with anyone for a moment or considering an alternative point of view because you are so worried about being right.
You are far more impressed with studies than I am. Earlier in this thread someone wrote a very long list of drugs that were studied and deemed safe only to be pulled later when they harmed people. Wakefield was published. Then he was debunked and retracted. Then he was later vindicated. So, while you may feel that your studies when you a debate today; the vaccines they tout might be found to harmful in the future.
As for showing me to be a liar, you are in error or stretching the meaning of liar. I had written a post, evidently I did not preview and post or post+post before closing my browser. That would be an error. Much like when you claimed you linked a study, but it was an abstract. Even with in the abstract linked, the cite study was a 21 page document. Not hardly the slam dunk scholarly article you made it out to be.
"I take the health of my kids seriously, and you obviously don't. "
Here is where I will agree with you. I do not take the health of your kids seriously. It is not my responsibility. It is yours.
Unlike you, I do not desire power over someone else's children. Nor do I wish for greater governmental intrusion into the bodies of citizens as you have rejoiced over. Loving freedom sometimes comes at the cost of having to tolerate other people's decisions that you do not like.