[Closed] Vaccine Denialsim

going back to tom1987's second category - the lowest vaccination rates in this city are in some of the wealthiest neighborhoods - educated enough to look for stuff on Facebook, not educated enough to understand why it's rubbish

dbcooper - Member
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes. It is not science.
POSTED 6 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

educated enough to look for stuff on Facebook, not educated enough to understand why it's rubbish

"the one wise quote you should send to all your friends!"

I run research trials for "big Pharma".

The issue here is whether parents (as an entire demographic) are adequately informed enough to make decisions about how their child is treated. In this case you have parents weighing up a perceived risk/benefit that they are just not equipped to understand. Imagining that every parent is going to invest the time to review all the available evidence in order to adequately understand is just deluded. Particularly when you are talking about population health vs personal risk.

Vaccines and Autism are two things that the general public just don't understand. Add "statistics" and "Children" to that mix and play on peoples fears about some sort of conspiracy involving the government and pharma companies (probably lizards/Jimmy Saville as well).... no wonder this has all got out of hand.

Personally, I think that what we are seeing is a correlation between when children receive their MMR, and when children tend to be diagnosed with Autism.

batfink - Member
Vaccines and Autism are two things that the general public just don't understand. Add "statistics" and "Children" to that mix and play on peoples fears about some sort of conspiracy involving the government and pharma companies (probably lizards/Jimmy Saville as well).... no wonder this has all got out of hand.

[url= http://www.naturalnews.com/046630_CDC_whistleblower_public_confession_Dr_William_Thompson.html ]CDC whistleblower confesses to MMR vaccine research fraud in historic public statement[/url]

Cover-ups exist and have existed as long as there have been banks, governments, corporations and secret societies.

Cover-ups exist and have existed as long as there have been banks, governments, corporations and secret societies.
CDC whistleblower confesses to MMR vaccine research fraud in historic public statement

Errr..... I agree. But do you agree that not EVERYTHING is a cover up?

Here's a picture of a cat doing a rubic's cube that was also on the internet:

[img] [/img]

I love the irony that the website that you are linking to - claiming that regulators are misrepresenting the scientific data - is running an advert (directly under the headline) that says:

"1 fruit that kills diabetes! Prevent or reverse type 2 diabetes by eating this 1 food from the grocery store"

So.... your mother/father/child has type 2 diabetes - you see this "advertorial" on one of your favourite websites, with all sorts of compelling testimonials, links to other sources that say: "wow, this stuff is amazing!", "I am cured!" and "don't pollute your body with medicines, use this natural alternative!".

So do you take your Mother/father/child off of their diabetes medication and give them some goji berries instead? This is essentially what this is about - just the other way around.

BTW: that fruit-based advert would be illegal in the UK - it's making a medical claim that (I am assuming) the manufacturer does not have a licence/data to support.

[img] ?oh=ae683a31e47db5bc1863be1d6409946d&oe=551328AB[/img]

That "CDC Whistleblower" stuff is an example of the utter claptrap that breaks my heart.

The irony of course is that Facebook provided a link to this site in the recommended links beneath when that link was shared:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/

Of course, it is just one doctor's counterpoint, but he raises some key points about statistical analysis. Yes, it's not as easy to digest or sexy as "OMG Big Pharma conspiracy eats our babies", but that is science for you.

Oh, and in some sort of perfect circle, I have seen this morning that the infographic posted above has been making the rounds, and had been dismissed as "oversimplified".

Very interesting gents but... geniune question.

Why did Wakefield publish?

Someone has said becuase he was paid to do so.

So who paid him and why ?

Why did Wakefield publish?

According to the paragon of truth that is wikipedia
" he planned a rival vaccine and products (such as a diagnostic kit based on his theory) that could have made his fortune."
ie he made patent submissions for the above.

So who paid him and why ?

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

According to this - you did, via the legal aid system...

It's a good read, but in a nutshell, he was paid to produce evidence linking MMR to bowel illness and autism in order to support compensation claims against the NHS/vaccine manufacturers.

I love the irony that the website that you are linking to - claiming that regulators are misrepresenting the scientific data - is running an advert (directly under the headline) that says:

"1 fruit that kills diabetes! Prevent or reverse type 2 diabetes by eating this 1 food from the grocery store"

Ah that'll be Natural News then - the site that not very long ago published a piece about [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/homeopathy-madness ]how to make your own homeopathic Ebola treatment by taking blood and saliva from Ebola victims[/url]!

Yep, they seem credible. 😯

"Here's a picture of a cat doing a rubic's cube that was also on the internet:"

the picture is missing - IT'S A COVER UP

BTW smithw6079 is a lizard botherer

and if you want to start making links make sure you have checked everything
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-10/risk-of-autism-twice-as-high-if-mothers-have-pre-eclampsia-duri/5957472

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine.../overview

So the government must just be pandering to the whimsical nature of conspiracy theory ?

linky no worky?

Maybe you mean this? https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment

Seems like a good idea, I wonder how much the unvaccinated damage payments would be?

Quick move house they are on to you and have deleted your link

Have you see enemy of the state?

That's you that is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4356027.stm

[url= http://www.sott.net/article/289989-Outbreak-of-whooping-cough-at-Massachusetts-high-school-affected-only-those-who-were-vaccinated ]Do vaccines really work?[/url]

[url= http://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/ ]Is Bill Gates facing a lawsuit for illegal vaccine testing in India?[/url]

[url= http://truthaboutgardasil.org/injuries/ ]Did the HPV vaccine damge these young women?[/url]

[url= http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/march-2011/no-pharma-liability--no-vaccine-mandates-.aspx ]Why can't US citizens sue the drug companies for vaccine damage?[/url]

[url= http://pathwaystofamilywellness.org/Informed-Choice/how-do-vaccines-work-immune-mechanisms-and-consequences.html ]Again, Do vaccines work[/url]

[url= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpC0Tbb3diI&feature=youtu.be ]Why is a doctor questioning the safety of vaccines?[/url]

Just a few questions I have about the safety of vaccines. I'm not some loon or 'halfwit. I'm just a parent trying to get the full picture and the truth. Which often leaves me feeling stuck between a rock and hard place.

OK vaccines do work, there may be side effects but compared to a pandemic it's not that bad. Not to do sweeping generalisations but research for is based in research and against anecdotal.

I'm [s]not[/s] some loon

FTFY

It just goes to show that the problems people have with making an informed choice. It depends on how discriminating you are with your sources of information.....

Some people seem prepared to accept any old.... information... as long as it appears on the internet.

I'm just a parent trying to get the full picture and the truth. Which often leaves me feeling stuck between a rock and hard place.

Good analogy. Let's imagine the "hard place" is science, let's imagine it's a concrete floor, the the weight of evidence behind it is the whole world. Then let's imagine the "rock" is the weight of evidence against the efficacy of vaccines, proportionately sized. So you're standing on a concrete floor with a grain of sand in your hair. Now brush off the grain of sand, go home, get your kids and get them vaccinated, so they they and those around them aren't at risk of preventable infectious disease.

as they say the answer is this

Yes they work and whilst they have some minor risks associated them they are less than the risks and consequences of catching the disease.

re your links
Do vaccines work
Laughable use of emottive language and cherry picking of facts

the pro-vaccine line

any deviation from the standard vaccine protocol, which is basically to take whatever the government says is good for you, becomes the automatic scapegoat when an outbreak occurs

Bill gates comes from Vactruth.com

Jeffry was a rescue swimmer in the United States Navy and held a Top Secret clearance. In 2000, he was honorably discharged from the Navy and a year later started his family. In 2001 his first son, Brandon, was born. Twenty one vaccines later, his son stopped reaching his developmental milestones.

After extensively researching the vaccine literature, he discovered vaccine injuries happen frequently and parents are often feared into getting their child vaccinated.

third one parents talking about ill kids I struggle with long sentences

If you search the internet you will fin dill informed folk clutching at straws to generate and get information to support their biases

you are in danger of becoming one of them if you are not already there

Nothing is safe but the best way to protect your kids , whilst not infallible, is to vaccinate

jimoiseau - Member
I'm just a parent trying to get the full picture and the truth. Which often leaves me feeling stuck between a rock and hard place.
Good analogy. Let's imagine the "hard place" is science, let's imagine it's a concrete floor, the the weight of evidence behind it is the whole world. Then let's imagine the "rock" is the weight of evidence against the efficacy of vaccines, proportionately sized. So you're standing on a concrete floor with a grain of sand in your hair. Now brush off the grain of sand, go home, get your kids and get them vaccinated, so they they and those around them aren't at risk of preventable infectious disease.

^^^^
Likey

"I'm just a parent trying to get the full picture and the truth" in 1980 2.6 million deaths from measles . Polio was a big issue once . Vaccines work . Unvaccinated children are at risk and put others at risk.
Notice the sources of your links and follow them up they are not that credible . Vaccines like many things can have very rare side effects . The diseases against which we vaccinate have very real life changing or ending symptoms .

Funny how the anti-vacc lot never seem interested in the horrific side effects inherent in [i]not[/i] vaccinating, isn't it.

I'm just a parent trying to get the full picture and the truth.

Perfectly understandable. Read back, I answered that question two pages ago.

After extensively researching the vaccine literature, he discovered vaccine injuries happen frequently

That's a pretty vague word right there. "frequently"

The key question is how does that frequency of vaccine injury compare to the frequency of "unvaccinated injury"?

The handy infographic suggested there were 2.6 MILLION deaths from measles as recently as 1980. That's pretty damn frequent!

Nobody seems bothered about strapping the kids in the car seat or going on a plane. "Car injuries and Plane injuries frequently happen."

This thread and it's topic is repeated countless times on the web. In many cases the the pro vac crew resort to aggression and ridicule towards anyone that dares to question the issue. The whole debate seems very black and white, yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

Surely someone (with no links to government and or drug companies) should conduct an impartial balanced study. If not, does it not suggest the concerns of many people are considered not be important or relevant in the matter of everyone's health and wellbeing.

In the name of science let's revisit this thread in 20 years and compare the lives and health of those vaccinated an unvaccinated. I'm up for it.

[quote=chipsngravy ]In the name of science let's revisit this thread in 20 years and compare the lives and health of those vaccinated an unvaccinated. I'm up for it.

Or we could just do that now. I wonder how many of these people were vaccinated?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22277186
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-23244628

Plenty of independent research already mentioned on this thread. Interestingly the most famous study to find a link did have funding from vested interests.

The balanced facts are readily available - those websites suggesting otherwise aren't the most sensible (I'm searching for a term which you won't consider aggression and ridicule - there's certainly very little of that on this thread, just lots of attempts at rational explanation).

Putting my money where my mouth is,

I've just had a vaccination at lunchtime.

</aside>

Sorry cougar. The vaccine for stupidity is wholly unproven 😛

Putting my money where my mouth is,

I've just had a vaccination at lunchtime.

</aside>

Just as balance to all the alarmist websites giving details of things people think were due to them receiving vaccinations:

http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/stories

Of course that site might also be biased, but the organisations behind it don't appear to have direct links to government or drugs companies
http://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk/
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/

In the name of science let's revisit this thread in 20 years and compare the lives and health of those vaccinated an unvaccinated. I'm up for it.

The thing is, pretty much all medical procedures involve some degree of risk and side-effect, however slight it might be.

So on an individual level it [i]might[/i] conceivably be safer to avoid the (very minor) risk of vaccines because chances are you'll still benefit from herd immunity by being surrounded by people who have been vaccinated.

Of course that is incredibly selfish and all falls apart if more than a few percent of people refuse vaccination, which is why anti-vaccination movements are so worrying.

Sorry cougar. The vaccine for stupidity is wholly unproven

Get out. (-:

The whole debate seems very black and white, yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

You know sometimes things really are black and white. Just because there are two different views doesn't mean the truth lies somewhere near the middle. The fact is that the media insist on presenting two opposing views as if they are of equal merit and sometimes they're not.

Surely someone (with no links to government and or drug companies) should conduct an impartial balanced study

You mean like the Cochrane reviews?

In the name of science let's revisit this thread in 20 years and compare the lives and health of those vaccinated an unvaccinated. I'm up for it.

Why wait 20 years? Vaccines aren't new, just look at the last 20 years to see the impact. Incidentally this has been done and the balance is massively in favour of vaccination.

Chipsandgravy
I'm sorry you feel that you cannot make a decision.
I feel that what you are saying is that in reality you do not understand how medical research works so you need to find someone you feel you can trust to tell you the truth?
My solution:
1) Either learn how it works and then look at the evidence (see the concrete vs grain of sand analogy up there)
2) Trust the scientists who have an enormous task of meeting all the checks and balances before a vaccine is allowed to go into production.
3) Do neither but snipe from the sidelines about how it is all wrong. (which I think is what drives the pissed offness of the majority of scientists)

Just because there are two different views doesn't mean the truth lies somewhere near the middle.

This ^^^
It's like tottally completly the most oftenestly commmmittted logical phallusy on the planet innit. ((sic) for the pedants)

This thread and it's topic is repeated countless times on the web. In many cases the the pro vac crew resort to aggression and ridicule towards anyone that dares to question the issue. The whole debate seems very black and white, yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

[i]cf.[/i] Climate Change

[img] [/img]

cf. Climate Change

Its a symptom of general science denialism/mistrust thing that we need to solve.

The whole debate seems very black and white, yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

I agree there are millions and millions of idiots with opinions on this.
If you want balanced facts why are you citing from agenda led sources that think they are bad and then they produce evidence that shows this? The ex navy seal dad who blamed it for his sons development issues for example. Parents with ill children who blame the vaccine etc. These are anecdotes and they are not balanced facts. Folk get cross because your evidence is poor/not actually evidence and you ignore the actual evidence and say things like government held view, tow the party line etc

As others not the Cochrane collaboration* provide what you want

The problem is YES occasionally complications arise form vaccinations [ rarely what those anti sites claim - see cougars phallacy] but the risk of this is massively less than the risk of the disease.

As simple as it can be said . Take your pick as to which risk you wish to expose your child to but you CANNOT eliminate it completely. The vaccination route is the least risky of the two choices by large factor. Millions died of the disease for example.

* makes me think of an acid Jazz band for some reason.

FWIW they even discuss how best to communicate the information to the masses

http://www.cochrane.org/features/do-interventions-aimed-communities-inform-and-educate-about-childhood-vaccination-improve-o

[i]The problem is YES occasionally complications arise form vaccinations ... but the risk of this is massively less than the risk of the disease.[/i]

This x1000

Vaccination is about accepting that the population as a whole benefits even if, for some individuals, there are side effects.

This is true for *all* drugs prescribed - they all have adverse effects on somebody but, overall, they treat disease successfully.

It does not mean that autism is a proven side effect of a vaccine though.

The problem is YES occasionally complications arise form vaccinations ... but the risk of this is massively less than the risk of the disease.

This x1000

Tell that to all the soldiers who came back from Iraq with gulf war syndrome , only they didn't because it doesn't exist .

Tell that to all the soldiers who came back from Iraq with gulf war syndrome , only they didn't because it doesn't exist

Well does it or not?

How many soldiers were vaccinated and how many claim to have the syndrome?

To repeat - it's about looking at the vaccinated population as a whole. Even if an adverse reaction is observed it may still be less than the number who would have been more badly affected by the disease.

It's like this statistic. We could save cyclists lives by making helmets compulsory but overall more people would die;

[img] [/img]

What has Gulf War Syndrome got to do with general vaccines. Serving soldiers who were expected to face chemical biological weapons were given drugs to ensure they continued to function within a relitvely short time frame any one who thought the sort of stuff they needed to combat nerve agents would be without long term harm was willfully blind. My mates who were in the BOAR in the 80s all knew that the stuff issued was going to harm them and expressed considerable reservations about ever using it.

Tell that to all the soldiers who came back from Iraq with gulf war syndrome , only they didn't because it doesn't exist .

Soldiers who were exposed to intense physical and psychological stress as well as depleted uranium, oil well fires, nerve gas, anthrax, nerve gas antidote and anthrax vaccine.

Yeah, it was probably [i]really[/i] due to their MMR vaccinations 🙄

Funny how the anti-vacc lot never seem interested in the horrific side effects inherent in not vaccinating, isn't it.

The problem is YES occasionally complications arise form vaccinations [ rarely what those anti sites claim - see cougars phallacy] but the risk of this is massively less than the risk of the disease.

Plus extreme statements of "horrific"

I'd post the results of a Google Image search for "smallpox" but it's not really suitable for this site.

Suffice to say that "horrific" is fairly accurate, but luckily smallpox was wiped out by.... vaccinations! yay!

Tell that to all the soldiers who came back from Iraq with gulf war syndrome , only they didn't because it doesn't exist .
Soldiers who were exposed to intense physical and psychological stress as well as depleted uranium, oil well fires, nerve gas, anthrax, nerve gas antidote and anthrax vaccine.

Yeah, it was probably really due to their MMR vaccinations

Wow soldiers were exposed to Anthrax . Funny because they never found any .

@Cougar. Bit of a sweeping generalisation there.

I'm terribly sorry. Can you cite me an example of an anti-vac site or organisation which highlights the dangers of not vaccinating? I'll cheerfully withdraw my generalisation then.

Plus extreme statements of "horrific" and "never"

Dunno about you, but I'd consider "death" to be a fairly horrific side effect. You think maybe they'll get better?

Quick example for you of a non-horrific side effect of not vaccinating.

[img] [/img]

Sign me up.

whether the risk is massively less than the disease depends entirely on the vaccine/disease and whether an alternative route was followed, eg MMR single vs multiple

1. If you take the vaccination you are vaccinated so no 🙄

2. Can you name a vaccination where the risk of complications/side affects are greater than the risks of the disease?

CAN YOU ? if not that "fact" is a baseless claim.

Well done for cherry picking the facts their may be complications...cognitive bias in action matched with ignoring the facts that refute your beliefs.
Well done

Wow soldiers were exposed to Anthrax . Funny because they never found any .

Hmmm.. so you believe them when they say there was no anthrax, but you don't believe them when they say that [url=

]"anthrax vaccine is not a likely cause of Gulf War illness"[/url]?

Some people may call that confirmation bias.

Some people may call that confirmation bias.

I call it a straw man. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Yeah that too.

yet millions of people sit in the grey area, wanting balanced facts.

sadly it was showing apparent balance that lead to the MMR hoax taking hold so ferociously. Simplistic editorial balance meant having one voice for the majority, established, evidence based medical sector and another voice for a lawyer-sponsored medical fraud and later for a handful of pretend-medical practitioners from the alternative medicine sector.

This was happening when the 'Nutrionist' fad was starting to gain traction. Nutrionism is new-agism re-packaged in every way possible to look like it might be real fact based science, and backed by lots of marketable product. At the time of the MMR hoohah nobody really knew (and the media certainly didn't seem to realise) that a 'Nutrionist' wasn't a doctor, even if he or she had a Harley Street address, and gave practioners from the movement airtime as if they were.

The problem with this 'balance' is it appears to make the issue 50:50. even though the weight and validity of argument falls extremely heavily one way.

The hoax was the fault of one doctor. He was paid to perpetrate the hoax because some lawyers wanted some ready-mix data for a court case which hinged on two events that coincided - they didn't have the evidence they needed to create a causal link for two-things-that-just-happened-to-occur-at-the-same-time for their case so they paid for the evidence to be created.

The hoax shouldn't and wouldn't have had any traction outside that court room if it hadn't been seized upon by the alternative medical sector - who are primarily marketeers - and if any coverage of the issue hadn't been 'balanced'.

The balance presented is akin to the world knowing that white is white, but me suspecting that white is black. BBC breakfast decide to do an item on 'white' and both me and a world respected authority in hue are invited onto the couch to present out arguments. He says a 30 second bit, I say a 30 second bit, he counters my argument, I say I'm sticking to it and thats the exactly the sort of thing people like him who are so called experts would say, Bill Turnbull interrupts to say that all they have time for, now lets go the news and weather where you are. The audience is left to conclude that white might be grey.

Unfortunately 'balance' these days is pretty much reduced to "Geoff says 'Daddy', Arthur says 'Chips' text us on 86755 and tell us what you think"

*applauds*

excellent summary there Mr Mac.

Is it time to post Dara again?

He talks a bit about "balance" here.

BBC have also been challenged on this re AGW as well for the same reason

Balance is fine but there is a problem with balance as it massively overrepresents and legitimises alternative fringe views

the internet does not help as you will find evidence to support anything if you search well enough

There is another aspect - the MMR bullshit is no more or less compelling bullshit that every anti-oxidant / superfood / ....causes cancer /.... cures cancer / single tablet cures chronic condition only weeks away story we hear every day.

Non of those stories ever gain any real traction, they're quickly forgotten. MMR scaremongering worked because theres nobody more doubtful of their actions than the parent of a young child.

Unfortunately theres nobody more ready to tell a parent the thing they are about to do is wrong than self appointed, self qualifying, self important quasi medical arseholes. Particularly if they've got a book out.

Quite.

In a way I'm sad that this is even a discussion. But if people end up better informed as a result, that's a good thing, right?

I get that folk want to do the best for their kids, I really do. I can't imagine what it'd be like to get this sort of decision wrong. And it's not without precedence; the mothers who took Thalidomide, for a start.

But. This really is a no-brainer. As a parent it must be awful, and perfectly natural, to be dithering over what to do; sitting there thinking "well I don't know, you hear these stories..." And you do, they're endemic; but they are stories spun by idiots, the ignorant, attention-seekers, and people looking to sell newspapers or otherwise profit from the disadvantaged. Do yourself, your kids, and frankly society as a whole a favour and ignore them.

Vaccinate your children. Do it now. Trust me, I'm a [s]doctor[/s] geek with a dogged compulsion to question everything.

Not that it makes any real odds, but my Mrs is a doctor and we still had a brief [i]"what if"[/i] moment before we got our kids vaccinated.

As you say, it's only natural.

Of course. And rightly so.

FWIW I missed the MMR jab with my eldest as we were abroad when they sent the appointment and for the date - we were only gone 10 days. We then could not do the next one as he had a cold and they refused. The amount of literature the state bombarded us with with was startling. there was no way of saying we know and we will. Eventually, when he had it done, he cried more when they took his hat off than when he had the injection.

I agree with cougar all parents want to protect their kids from harm. unfortunately we cannot do it and we have to make choices. The best one ,for them and everyone else's children, is to vaccinate.

Its scary and you are nervous, as you are with many events with them but it is a no brainer.

GrahamS - Member
Wow soldiers were exposed to Anthrax . Funny because they never found any .
Hmmm.. so you believe them when they say there was no anthrax, but you don't believe them when they say that "anthrax vaccine is not a likely cause of Gulf War illness"?

Some people may call that confirmation bias.

POSTED 47 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Since they dispute that Gulf war syndrome actually exists then it would be difficult for them to claim Anthrax vaccine was a cause .

And just so we are clear here are you still claiming that anthrax was in Iraq to be used as a weapon ?

Statistically representative scientific debate.

Unfortunately 'balance' these days is pretty much reduced to "Geoff says 'Daddy', Arthur says 'Chips' text us on 86755 and tell us what you think"

Plus extreme statements of "horrific" and "never"

Here's another timely anecdote, just popped up on another thread.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-had-chicken-pox-vaccine#post-6534727

Having seen the consequences over the years of viral infections with kids turning into sepsis the more you can eliminate the better. The use of "horrific" and "never" aren't extreme, there's a very good reason they immunise against these illnesses.

I had no hesitation making sure my kids are up to day with immunisations.

I've just added my pics to that thread. We got away with her life, just.

Lots of reading [url= http://www.badscience.net/index.php?s=MMR+AUTISM ]HERE[/url]and it's worth a giggle typing in Gillian McKeith in the site search bar.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-concludes ]another study on MMR and autism[/url]