Answer me this, if it wasn't based on Wakefield's study, what was it based on? There is no other scientific evidence in the field that shows a casual link, so it speaks even less to the Italian court if they guessed, or tried to play scientist themselves (or only listened to the one biased doctor who was selling autism snake oil, which was also the case according to press reports).
I think this can be easily put to rest as Italian courts are notoriously and laughably anti-science, as you've ignored the earlier example where an Italian court convicted seven scientists for not predicting an earthquake:
Italian Court Convicts Scientists For Not Warning of Earthquake
That alone debunks any assertion that "Italian courts" are somehow purveyors of scientific findings.
Perhaps you think science is decided by courts and trial lawyers. You must be a huge fan of Erin Brockovich and John Edwards, who made millions off of malpractice suits, preying on juries' ignorance of medical science. The anti-vax movement is using the same tactics.
You and your friends at DU are probably licking your lips at the thought of trial lawyers making billions off of a phony autism/vaccination link.
Those of us in the real world will stick with the facts.
The Banks case was a situation where the child with diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Delay, which is not an autism spectrum disorder. The court sloppily used PDD and PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specialized) interchangeably at some points. Of course, the anti-vax echo chamber picked up on this and tried again to use a court ruling to make a scientific case, which isn't how science has ever worked.
Your studies about the link between rubella and autism are extremely outdated (and largely not relevant to the topic), and since the early 70s and late 90s, we've seen evidence that the MMR vaccine not only prevents Congenital Rubella Syndrome, but also autism spectrum disorders:
The conclusion of this study?
We estimate that rubella vaccination prevented substantial numbers of CRS and ASD cases in the United States from 2001 through 2010. These findings provide additional incentive to maintain high measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage.
Once again the latest science debunks your claims.
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, 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.
Empathy really has no place in science. It doesn't matter whether I empathize with parents of kids with health problems (I do). But it's irrelevant to the facts of the case. Everything you've thrown out is easily debunked and proven false, and shown to be largely a product of anti-vaxer blogs, erroneous and questionable court findings, and disconnected dots and misrepresentations.
You are far more impressed with studies than I am.
This is certainly true, although the word wouldn't be "impressed". I accept that the mechanism of scientific research and its reporting in scientific journals and through the process of peer review as the best method we have for assessing scientific findings. It's basically, "Here's what I did, here are the methods and tools I used, here was my hypothesis and here are my findings. Feel free to double and triple check my work and do the same thing I did and test your findings."
I don't accept things simply because someone wrote them on the Internet, which seems to be the MO of these blogs you keep pointing to.
It's also flabbergasting that you posted the Walker findings, and repeated the falsehood that they vindicated Wakefield's fraudulent hypothesis. I looked through the whole study, and I didn't even see one mention of the MMR vaccine or immunizations. Here, see for yourself:
How exactly does this vindicate Wakefield's claim of autism and vaccination? Please cite specifics.
Then again, maybe you shouldn't bother, because even if I cite from a source you trust (Mercola), we see this:
So, case closed on that. It doesn't do anything to refute the many, many dozens of studies that I've cited to you which show no vaccine/autism link, none of which you seem to have read.
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.
Right. That's because there is a process for medications being approved and then taken off the market after being found harmful. Vaccines are under the same scrutiny, and the evidence is not there to prove any sort of harm that makes them inherently dangerous. They have side effects just like all medical treatments and procedures. Luckily, we don't live in the age of the smallpox vaccine which had as high as a 1% adverse reaction rate. Vaccines today are safe and effective.
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
I would give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but...
Much like when you claimed you linked a study, but it was an abstract.
It wasn't either, it was a press release with the study linked at the bottom, a perfectly acceptable citation, and I even linked directly to the study after you were confused about what it was.
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.
How many scientific studies have you read? How long do you think they are?
Here's an example you might like; Dr. Wakefield's original study in the Lancet, full text is just under 7 pages printed.
They are often quite brief compared to master's theses. So, once again, you're wrong.
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 your responsibility to make sure your actions don't harm others. That's just the way the world works, and if you don't take responsibility for the outcomes of your actions, you don't understand liberty.
I don't desire control over anyone's children, and unlike you, I don't think I can do whatever I want no matter the effect on other people.
Loving freedom sometimes comes at the cost of having to tolerate other people's decisions that you do not like.
It really has nothing to do with "liking" your decisions. Loving freedom also means you take responsibility for what you do. Liberty does not mean doing things that infringe on the liberty of others, like exposing children unnecessarily to infectious diseases.