Vaccine related autism study?

[Magical Realist]

Except... didn't you say something earlier about how this inorganic mercury wasn't able to be purged by the body, and just accumulated, hmm?

So... which is it?

We're talking about aluminum. Please keep up with the conversation.

 

[billvon]

So the FDA is saying the amount of injectable aluminum into a 200 lb grown adult is the same for a 25 lb baby?

No, they are not. Nor are they saying that TPN patients are considered healthy, or that premature babies are the same as full term babies.

From the article - "There is a glaring error with Dr Sears aluminum information that would likely go over most people's heads." Looks like it went over yours.

For a fun comparison, find out how much aluminum there is in a single baby aspirin.

 

[Bells]

So I logged on sciforums, and noted that I had received a few messages about members having responded to a post I made, where I criticised some individuals (including moderators) for ganging up on Magical Realist and not offering much in the way of a logical argument. Lo and behold, my post has been surreptitiously deleted, with only vestiges remaining where it has been quoted by other posters. No indication was given to the audience or myself that the post had been deleted, nor was a reason given. I guess someone was really upset about me pointing out that confusing 'micrograms' and 'milligrams' is a mistake even a high school science student should not make.

Given that Magical Realist has been lynched by you guys for 24 pages of this discussion, I find it rather ironic that his detractors have such a thin skin. Put your big boy pants on, folks.

Beg yours?

If you are talking about me, I didn't even see your original post until just now. And I corrected my mistake and commented on it in a later post.

But hey, not that you would acknowledge that. Just as you would never acknowledge that this thread has been going on for over 20 pages and we have provided scientific study after study and each have been ignored because they do not fit into what he wants to believe about vaccines. Nor do you acknowledge that for anyone to be arguing against people vaccinating their children and jumping on the scare mongering wagon and literally saying that MMR causes autism, during a time of a fairly dangerous and substantial measles outbreak is dangerous in itself.

Speaking for myself, on page 7 of this thread, I linked to several studies, one of which was a mega review of 54 studies, involving over 14 million children, which was trying to find a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. None was found.

Also provided links to a study in Japan, where the MMR vaccine was phased out and then totally withdrawn in an area of the country:

This study examined cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven for children born from 1988 to 1996 in Kohoku Ward (population approximately 300,000), Yokohama, Japan. ASD cases included all cases of pervasive developmental disorders according to ICD-10 guidelines. Results: 

The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993. Conclusions: 

The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD.​

If anyone wanted absolute proof that there is no connection, this study provides it. The withdrawal of the MMR vaccine for several years should have seen a drop in the numbers of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) if it was caused by the MMR vaccine. Instead, the number of children (who never received the MMR vaccine) who were diagnosed with ASD went up.

These were also ignored.

And on and on it went. We all provided actual science, in response we got woo woo and made up studies and other studies misrepresented because all he does is quote mine from anti-vaccination sites.

You are very quick to point fingers tali89. I get it, you want things to be about you. This is not about you and has nothing to do with you. Having just viewed your deleted post in a different window, the moderator who deleted it, has saved you some very uncomfortable questions. Such as how can you comment or even know of a precedent that was set here years ago when you were supposedly never here? But that is a topic that is not for this thread. This thread isn't about you and your pathological need to accuse without foundation.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Depends on how many apples I was getting rid of for over a month. You see, we have something in us called a liver that removes toxins from the blood. The argument against month-long buildup relies on the fact of the simultaneous elimination of toxins from the body via the liver and kidneys.

So you are saying that aluminum does not buildup? Whether you think it does or not, you must be aware that the daily uptake figures are set based on the conclusion that they do, so you are improperly comparing daily and monthly figures.

So, obvious follow-up: how fast do the kidneys eliminate aluminum?

 

[Magical Realist]

No, they are not. Nor are they saying that TPN patients are considered healthy, or that premature babies are the same as full term babies.

From the article - "There is a glaring error with Dr Sears aluminum information that would likely go over most people's heads." Looks like it went over yours.

For a fun comparison, find out how much aluminum there is in a single baby aspirin.

Ingestible aluminum isn't as bad as injected aluminum because it is eliminated more quickly thru the intestines:

“The situation with vaccines is vastly different because we get much higher amounts from vaccines but that amount is almost 100 percent absorbed because it bypasses the gastrointestinal tract. So injectable aluminum is potentially more toxic than ingestible aluminum.” …

“We are not telling people not to vaccinate their children; we are not doctors,” he added. “We don’t give recommendations. People have to do what they think is best. But we don’t think we can pretend that adverse reactions don’t happen and that aluminum is not a neurotoxin.’

 

[Magical Realist]

So you are saying that aluminum does not buildup? Whether you think it does or not, you must be aware that the daily uptake figures are set based on the conclusion that they do, so you are improperly comparing daily and monthly figures.

So, obvious follow-up: how fast do the kidneys eliminate aluminum?

LOL! Look it up yourself.

 

[Magical Realist]

We all provided actual science, in response we got woo woo and made up studies and other studies misrepresented because all he does is quote mine from anti-vaccination sites.

You're lying again. There are quite literally over a hundred studies establishing a link between autism and vaccine toxins. I have repeatedly posted these and you continue to claim they are made up or misrepresented on anti-vax sites. They are not. You can look at the papers themselves. 8 have been posted directly in this thread, with no response beyond that this is just all false. As regards your studies, I have already acknowledged there are studies showing no link. But that is far from proving no link. The fact that there is contradictory evidence in this area needs to be addressed by scientists, as well as recent findings of the CDC falsifying tons of reports in this area. How many of these are in fact the ones you linked to I wonder? All this needs to examined, for the sake of parents trying to do what is best for their kids.

Tali89..You are being victimized as I have been by disgruntled moderators who have to use their modhat to ban, infract, and censor posters in order to win an argument. James R is PMing me on this and we will figure out what to do about it. I would report Kittamaru for deliberately removing your post simply because it revealed him in a bad light. I've repeatedly reported Bells for flaming and insulting, but I don't even get an alert on that. Most the mods basically kiss each other's ass here so much they basically get away with behavior that would get someone like us banned immediately.

 

[Russ_Watters]

LOL! Look it up yourself.

So that's a yes? Yes, you are purposely using the wrong value for the daily limit?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Federal Regulations for biological products (including vaccines) limit the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 0.85-1.25 mg. For example, the amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth is 0.25 mg.

It could not be clearer how wrong you are, MR.

 

[billvon]

There are quite literally over a hundred studies establishing a link between autism and vaccine toxins.

No, there are not. You have posted several studies that claim some connection, but not a single one has proven a causal connection.

 

[Magical Realist]

It could not be clearer how wrong you are, MR.

This doesn't account for body weight. The amount of aluminum injectable into an adult would be way more than for a baby. So much for the FDA's bogus "safety limit." lol!

 

[billvon]

This doesn't account for body weight.

Correct. It is for EVERYONE. That means they chose the limit to be safe for an infant - which means it has several orders of magnitude safety margin for adults.

Of course you probably think that parents who give their children baby aspirin are poisoning them with a potent neurotoxin. OMG! LOL! LOL!

 

[Kittamaru]

This thread is just... wow... just wow...

MR - get your facts, and your story, straight.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/

Aluminium is used as an adjuvant in vaccines and hyposensitization treatments to precipitate toxins and toxoids, enhance their antigenic properties and reduce their rate of absorption and elimination. Aluminium can produce aluminium-species-dependent dermal irritation.

Experimental animal studies have failed to demonstrate carcinogenicity attributed solely to aluminium compounds. Often the response reported is associated with a tissue response to a foreign body rather than a direct effect of aluminium exposure. This appeared to be consistent across various routes of exposure from inhalation to intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection.

In agreement with their non-carcinogenic activity, aluminium compounds failed to show positive results in most short-term mutagenic assays and animal experiments to determine genotoxic potential of aluminium compounds lead to contradictory results with suggestions of an anti-genotoxic potential.

So sorry, but once again, actual scientists and medical professionals say that you are WRONG.

As with mercury - the concentrations found in Vaccinations is not only impotent, but far less than one would get from other sources, such as food or exposure in the workplace.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So much for the FDA's bogus "safety limit." lol!

Previously:

The amount of aluminum in the Hepatitis B vaccine alone is almost14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVE

So:
Step 1: Cite the limit incorrectly.
Step 2: Get corrected.
Step 3: Claim the limit to have been bogus to begin with.

Clearly you are not only making this up as you go along* - and doing a bad job of it - but once it becomes sufficiently proven that you are wrong, you hit the eject button and cry "conspiracy!".

Obviously unscientific, obviously trolling.

[Edit: *well, since the initial citation is from a crackpot source, it is possible you don't at first recognize that you are wrong.]

 

[Magical Realist]

In summary, here are what the transcripts appear to show with regards to the JCVI/DH meetings that took place from 1983-2010.

• Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines
• Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues
• Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies
• Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits
• Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine pediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted
• Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues
• Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunization program which could put certain children at risk of server long term neurological damage

The report goes on to provide some incredible and shocking information that is important for people to know. The report is cited in the article, but again, you can read the full version HERE.

In the last 30 years, the United States vaccine schedule has tripled, along with various ailments and disease. From birth, babies are bombard with a variety of different vaccinations. As a result, many have died, fallen ill and acquired a number of health problems. A 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, passed by congress as a result of pharmaceutical lobbying shields pharmaceutical companies and drug companies from injuries and deaths caused by the vaccines they manufacture. So, regardless of vaccine manufactures and health authorities knowing about the dangers associated with vaccines, and covering them up, they are still protected. Nevertheless, taxpayer money has dished out billions of dollars in vaccine injury related ailments.

This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a reality. It’s always important to look at information on both sides of the coin. Sure, some vaccinations may have been successful in disease prevention, that doesn’t mean all of them are and have been. Health authorities and vaccine manufactures do commit scientific fraud and cover up information that might hurt their interests. Apart from this information, there are a number of credible studies that show how some vaccines can, are and have been harmful to human health. To view more articles from CE on this, click HERE

“Just because a study sponsored by the manufacturer does not identify problems with the vaccine does not necessarily mean that the vaccine is safe. In fact, if one looks at the manufacturer studies, their often not designed to detect serious adverse events. Obviously, you’re not going to find what you’re not looking for.” – Lucija Tomljenovic (2)====

 

[Russ_Watters]

In summary, here are what the transcripts appear to show with regards to the JCVI/DH meetings that took place from 1983-2010.

• Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines
• Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues
• Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies
• Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits
• Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine pediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted
• Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues
• Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunization program which could put certain children at risk of server long term neurological damage

The report goes on to provide some incredible and shocking information that is important for people to know. The report is cited in the article, but again, you can read the full version HERE.

In the last 30 years, the United States vaccine schedule has tripled, along with various ailments and disease. From birth, babies are bombard with a variety of different vaccinations. As a result, many have died, fallen ill and acquired a number of health problems. A 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, passed by congress as a result of pharmaceutical lobbying shields pharmaceutical companies and drug companies from injuries and deaths caused by the vaccines they manufacture. So, regardless of vaccine manufactures and health authorities knowing about the dangers associated with vaccines, and covering them up, they are still protected. Nevertheless, taxpayer money has dished out billions of dollars in vaccine injury related ailments.

This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a reality. It’s always important to look at information on both sides of the coin. Sure, some vaccinations may have been successful in disease prevention, that doesn’t mean all of them are and have been. Health authorities and vaccine manufactures do commit scientific fraud and cover up information that might hurt their interests. Apart from this information, there are a number of credible studies that show how some vaccines can, are and have been harmful to human health. To view more articles from CE on this, click HERE

“Just because a study sponsored by the manufacturer does not identify problems with the vaccine does not necessarily mean that the vaccine is safe. In fact, if one looks at the manufacturer studies, their often not designed to detect serious adverse events. Obviously, you’re not going to find what you’re not looking for.” – Lucija Tomljenovic (2)====

Eject!! Eject!! Eject!!

Step 4: Flood post something else in hopes of changing the subject.

 

[Magical Realist]

Previously:

So:
Step 1: Cite the limit incorrectly.
Step 2: Get corrected.
Step 3: Claim the limit to have been bogus to begin with.

Clearly you are not only making this up as you go along - and doing a bad job of it - but once it becomes sufficiently proven that you are wrong, you hit the eject button and cry "conspiracy!".

Obviously unscientific, obviously trolling.

Now you're trolling. That statement: "The amount of aluminum in the Hepatitis B vaccine alone is almost 14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVE." is referring to the FDA aluminum limit as determined via body weight based on paretental products. You should go back and read the whole article you cherry-picked that out of context from and deliberately lied about as referring to the 1.25 mg limit. You're so obsessed with finding some small detail I'm wrong about you are starting to lie and twist information here.

 

[Kittamaru]

In summary, here are what the transcripts appear to show with regards to the JCVI/DH meetings that took place from 1983-2010.

• Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines
• Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues
• Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies
• Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits
• Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine pediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted
• Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues
• Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunization program which could put certain children at risk of server long term neurological damage

The report goes on to provide some incredible and shocking information that is important for people to know. The report is cited in the article, but again, you can read the full version HERE.

In the last 30 years, the United States vaccine schedule has tripled, along with various ailments and disease. From birth, babies are bombard with a variety of different vaccinations. As a result, many have died, fallen ill and acquired a number of health problems. A 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, passed by congress as a result of pharmaceutical lobbying shields pharmaceutical companies and drug companies from injuries and deaths caused by the vaccines they manufacture. So, regardless of vaccine manufactures and health authorities knowing about the dangers associated with vaccines, and covering them up, they are still protected. Nevertheless, taxpayer money has dished out billions of dollars in vaccine injury related ailments.

This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a reality. It’s always important to look at information on both sides of the coin. Sure, some vaccinations may have been successful in disease prevention, that doesn’t mean all of them are and have been. Health authorities and vaccine manufactures do commit scientific fraud and cover up information that might hurt their interests. Apart from this information, there are a number of credible studies that show how some vaccines can, are and have been harmful to human health. To view more articles from CE on this, click HERE

“Just because a study sponsored by the manufacturer does not identify problems with the vaccine does not necessarily mean that the vaccine is safe. In fact, if one looks at the manufacturer studies, their often not designed to detect serious adverse events. Obviously, you’re not going to find what you’re not looking for.” – Lucija Tomljenovic (2)====

I see you are leaning on Dr. Christopher Shaw...


Regarding Dr. Shaw’s scientific credentials, allow me to direct you to the New Zealand Immunisation Advisory Centre (University of Auckland)., where Shaw testified in a case where the decedent’s mother claimed a Gardasil vaccine killed her daughter:

http://www.immune.org.nz/commentary-coronial-inquiry-expert-witness-testimony

Claim: In a review of the literature on the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines (1) the authors Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw conclude that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and risk for adverse effects underestimated and that this matter has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.

Fact:Other reviews on the safety of aluminium adjuvants and vaccines in general (of which there are many) consistently support the safety of aluminium adjuvanted vaccines (2, 3). Tomljenovic and Shaw appear to have cherry picked the research to fit with their theory and omitted work by prominent experts in the field of aluminium adjuvants, most notably Professor Stanley Hem. There is no description of how the papers were selected for review or criteria for inclusion or exclusion. This is a serious flaw in any literature review and an unscientific approach to testing a theory. The paper also includes a range of erroneous assumptions. The World Health Organization considers the paper seriously flawed

Scientific credibility of Dr Shaw:

Dr Shaw has published two pieces of rodent research on the role of aluminium in neurological damage and several reviews (funded by anti-immunisation lobby groups) on the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines (1, 7-9). These review articles are not original research and simply cite a range of material that appears to support a pre-established position. This is not scientific. There are many articles published that use a systematic approach to evaluating the safety of vaccines and review articles meeting a strict set of criteria for quality that address a particular research or clinical question. This repeated failure to use the scientific method to assess the safety of vaccines and aluminium draws the scientific credibility of Dr Chris Shaw into serious question.

References

1. Tomljenovic L, A. Shaw C. Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: Are they safe? Current Medicinal Chemistry. 2011;18(17):2630-7.

2. Mitkus RJ, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO. Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination. Vaccine. 2011;29(51):9538-43.

3. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: Systematic review of the evidence. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2004;4(2):84-90.

7. Tomljenovic L. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s Disease: After a century of controversy, is there a plausible link? Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. 2011;23(4):567-98.

8. Tomljenovic L, Shaw C. Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations. Lupus. 2012;21(2):223-30.

9. Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2011;105(11):1489-99.
​

 

[Magical Realist]

I see you are leaning on Dr. Christopher Shaw...


Regarding Dr. Shaw’s scientific credentials, allow me to direct you to the New Zealand Immunisation Advisory Centre (University of Auckland)., where Shaw testified in a case where the decedent’s mother claimed a Gardasil vaccine killed her daughter:

http://www.immune.org.nz/commentary-coronial-inquiry-expert-witness-testimony

Claim: In a review of the literature on the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines (1) the authors Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw conclude that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and risk for adverse effects underestimated and that this matter has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.

Fact:Other reviews on the safety of aluminium adjuvants and vaccines in general (of which there are many) consistently support the safety of aluminium adjuvanted vaccines (2, 3). Tomljenovic and Shaw appear to have cherry picked the research to fit with their theory and omitted work by prominent experts in the field of aluminium adjuvants, most notably Professor Stanley Hem. There is no description of how the papers were selected for review or criteria for inclusion or exclusion. This is a serious flaw in any literature review and an unscientific approach to testing a theory. The paper also includes a range of erroneous assumptions. The World Health Organization considers the paper seriously flawed

Scientific credibility of Dr Shaw:

Dr Shaw has published two pieces of rodent research on the role of aluminium in neurological damage and several reviews (funded by anti-immunisation lobby groups) on the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines (1, 7-9). These review articles are not original research and simply cite a range of material that appears to support a pre-established position. This is not scientific. There are many articles published that use a systematic approach to evaluating the safety of vaccines and review articles meeting a strict set of criteria for quality that address a particular research or clinical question. This repeated failure to use the scientific method to assess the safety of vaccines and aluminium draws the scientific credibility of Dr Chris Shaw into serious question.

References

1. Tomljenovic L, A. Shaw C. Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: Are they safe? Current Medicinal Chemistry. 2011;18(17):2630-7.

2. Mitkus RJ, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO. Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination. Vaccine. 2011;29(51):9538-43.

3. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: Systematic review of the evidence. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2004;4(2):84-90.

7. Tomljenovic L. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s Disease: After a century of controversy, is there a plausible link? Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. 2011;23(4):567-98.

8. Tomljenovic L, Shaw C. Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations. Lupus. 2012;21(2):223-30.

9. Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2011;105(11):1489-99.
​

LOL! For every doctor who has taken a stand for vaccine/autism correlations, there are several websites dedicated to slandering them and ad homing them. Funny they don't actually address the merits of the studies themselves.

 

[Kittamaru]

Now you're trolling. That statement: "The amount of aluminum in the Hepatitis B vaccine alone is almost 14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVE." is referring to the FDA aluminum limit as determined via body weight based on paretental products. You should go back and read the whole article you cherry-picked that out of context from and deliberately lied about as referring to the 1.25 mg limit. You're so obsessed with finding some small detail I'm wrong about you are starting to lie and twist information here.

Uhm...

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

Do also consider - the amount of aluminium in the injection is NOT absorbed all at once - I do not know the specifics at this time, but it takes time for it to absorb into the bloodstream - from what I am seeing though, a baby with healthy kidneys/liver function should be able to withstand the amount of aluminium in vaccinations without issue... giving these injections to premature babies, though, could be hazardous.

Simple solution - spread the injection of the vaccinations out over several days to allow the aluminium to be purged from the system.

Problem solved.

LOL! For every doctor who has taken a stand for vaccine/autism correlations, there are several websites dedicated to slandering them and ad homing them. Funny they don't actually address the merits of the studies themselves.

Funny, though, that this isn't a website, but a fucking COURT CASE that came to this decision... and the website provides citations and references (which is more than can be said for most of your "evidence")