Yes you did. And you even quoted your own words where you claimed it was. When I said, "How many scientific studies have you read? How long do you think they are?", you said, "The one I linked was 1271 pgs."
That is very clearly claiming the GSK report was a scientific study, when it was not. It was a report to a regulatory agency. That's like claiming a tax return is an economic report. It was done for regulatory purposes, which is why it is so long. It's less research on the vaccine and largely made up of the reporting of adverse reactions.
Clearly, when a company is bringing a vaccine to market they do a more thorough study than the pathetic 21 page study you cited.
You haven't pointed out why it is "pathetic", nor addressed the fact that it was of comparable length to most published scientific studies on the subject, even Wakefield's fraudulent one and your rubella studies. You also didn't address the fact that your entire reason for citing the GSK report was that it was used as evidence in court for "proving" an MMR link to autism, and I easily pointed out that not only did the GSK not even deal with the MMR vaccine, but there were no causal links in the report, and that it also listed spider bites and broken bones as reported side effects also.
It probably is beyond your abilities since it is clear you have no background in a scientific discipline.
No, I actually reviewed the report to see if it claimed what you said it did, and provided evidence that disproved you and the court's claims along with page numbers so folks can see themselves.
So your claim is erroneous.
I clearly introduced the 2014 case and explained the error.
Yes, and you kept repeating the error. It doesn't really matter as I've provided clear evidence of the court's malfeasance.
You still didn't provide an alternative to Wakefield's study as the main driver of the 2012 case and I've already debunked the GSK report as showing a casual link in the 2014 case.
Just to let you know, the scientists who were convicted of "not predicting an earthquake" in Italy had their convictions overturned, thankfully. But it still doesn't speak to Italy's court system being scientifically literate in the least. You can take their findings as "proven science" if you want to, but most normal folks can see there's a problem with relying on Italian courts as arbiters of scientific findings.
Updated: Appeals court overturns manslaughter convictions of six earthquake scientists
Perhaps with the genius you clearly are you could put that abstract into laymans terms. Also could you post your credentials so that us layman could understand your superior medical knowledge in this matter with something we could look up and verify. And with your superior medical knowledge, do you see any failings in the methodology of this study. Also, maybe you in your infinite knowledge, could you educate us less fortunate folk, in matters regarding other adverse reactions to vaccines.
Simple; I guess I'll have to repeat myself.
I read through the GlaxoSmithKline report (it's largely made up of tables and descriptions of adverse events having nothing to do with autism) and found that the mentions of autism are in sections detailing reported adverse events. I also found adverse events that are clearly not linked to the vaccine were listed all over the report, such as broken bones and insect bites. The company itself even notes one case:
Conversely, a medical history of Herpes type II and recent mosquito multiple bites was noted. Causal relationship with the vaccination was unlikely.
It seems clear that I spent more time looking at this thing that you did, so you've clearly been disproved here unless you want to actually read through the report and point to something that links autism to the vaccine in a more relevant manner than other erroneous adverse events like "Forearm fracture", "Joint dislocation", "Carbon monoxide poisoning", "Groin abscess", "Sense of oppression", and "Phimosis".
If this report were evidence in the way you and the court are trying to use it, you could literally use it as proof that the hexavalent vaccine causes all known health problems.
Read your damn sources next time instead of cutting and pasting from anti-vax blogs. I've asked you to do this several times and you never seem to learn.
You have been in support of vaccines in general not anyone in specific. So, I do not see how this is even an argument that you would put forth.
Our conversation was clearly talking about the MMR vaccine and its supposed autism link. Any digression would have reasonably been noted by someone wanting to talk about different vaccines.
The more likely explanation is that you didn't even know that the 2014 case and GSK study dealth with hexavalent and not MMR, since you likely just cut and pasted a link, and were in the fact the one who "googled well" without actually reading your source.
Further, I cited a study from way back that identified Rubella as a cause of Autism. You never "debunked nor defeated" that study.
All three studies you linked to on this subject dealt with congenital rubella, which by its very nature can't be caused by a vaccine. Congential rubella occurs when the mother gets sick with it while she's pregnant, and it only usually affects infants if the mother gets it in the first trimester.
Autism can be a byproduct of fetal development being affected by the virus while the baby is in utero. There's no indication whatsoever in any of those studies that you can contract a "congenital" disease after you're out of the womb by getting a vaccine. It's a nonsensical assertion.
Quite interestingly, all three of those studies are under 15 pages long, yet earlier you said that a study I linked to was "pathetic" because it was only 21 pages.
Once again, we see complete incoherence in your arguments.
I highly doubt you truly understand science at anymore than a high school level.
Silly insults seem to be your last gasp at regaining some foothold here, as it has not been difficult to find the inherent and obvious flaws in all of your arguments. Not only do you seem to be relying on anti-vax crackpot websites, you don't even seem to read the few pieces scientific evidence that you've linked to.
So, what you have proposed as proof is an almost impossible hurdle to overcome.
It's not impossible at all. All you need to do is provide one piece of scientific evidence that shows a causal relationship with autism. There are all sorts of known causal side effects for just about every vaccine, and there always has been going back to Jenner. That simple fact proves wrong the idea that proving causality is "impossible."
I have more than one PM about what a wanker you are, many of them citing the logical and factual flaws in your argument.
That's probably the only true thing you've said; I have no doubt that your little anti-vax cargo cult consults each other and forms sewing circles in order to disseminate the latest anti-tax talking points. What's interesting is that if you are receiving all of these messages about flaws in my arguments, why can't you use them and point them out yourself? I've successfully shot down every argument you've made by using scientific evidence as well as your own evidence (which is usually misinterpreted and taken out of context).
I don't even need to list my degrees and work experience for anyone but the most pro-vaccine anti-liberty people to see you as the a science poser who Googles articles and parrots what he finds.
First of all, I doubt you have degrees from anywhere other than diploma mills. You've shown no grasp of any of the subjects we've been discussing, and your evidence comes from dubious blogs. In the rare case where you cite a scientific study or report, a quick review shows that you don't quote from those sources and likely don't read them.
You can keep coming back and embarrassing yourself if you like, but I think it best if you don't continue.
Nothing you've posted stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever.