My 4 children were immunized for everything available, starting from infancy. No autism. This is also true of my sister's three children, and my brothers' 5 children. Of the two children in the most recent generation, both of them were fully immunized, and neither is autistic. That's 14 fully immunized people, a small sample, but without autism, nonetheless.
Nice. Lucky you.
On the other hand, if 100% of immunized people developed autism, we wouldn't be having this stupid discussion, would we?
Someone might have <GASP> worked on a solution!
I have set up an elephant defense system, and not one elephant has penetrated it in 30 years!
Most families could cite those statistics before the last three decades, but that doesn't change the fact that most families can now name you at least one autistic or autistic spectrum disordered family member, if only in their extended family.
If you think that's an exaggeration, post yourself at the exit of a standard supermarket and try it. You'll be very surpised. Even the medical authorities are (slowly) being forced to admit that autism and its related disorders are now pandemic (not an epidemic but no longer just incidental, either).
The people that are finally forcing the meds to admit the incidence of autism, etc., are not -- interestingly -- the families but another part of the "system": the educators and agency-based (federal and state monies) providers of care for the disabled (after families finally cave in from the burden of care). As we have witnessed with Terri Schiavo, natural family have virtually no voice in this and related situations -- only the "legal caregivers" have a voice.
"That's 14 fully immunized people, a small sample, but without autism, nonetheless."
Clearly you are just a shill for the drug companies who want to hide the harmful side-effects of vaccines so that they can bolster their bottom-lines.
Although I dismissed it earlier, your post got me to thinking...
This is actually representative of how simple it is to skew results in your favor.
Let's say that a drug company wanted to hide the fact that there is a correlation between their particular drug and a syndrome like Autism.
Let's also say that, because the've been watching this link for longer than most of us peions, they've got additional data that we don't have; stuff like: autism clusters, amounts of vaccine sales in a correlating area, etc. Let's say there is also a genetic or environmental correlation to autism.
All the leader of the study would have to do is say something like: OK, let's base our study here and, just to discount any unfairness, let's exclude anyone with a history of autism in their family...
While the study would still be "officially" sound, it would tend to point away from their product if their with other causal factors that, taken together with their product, leads to autism.
Not saying it's happening here-- I'm just pointing out that, given the right information and incentive, a study could be designed to clear whomever needed to be cleared.
Who's got the most to lose if a causal relationship is found? ...and, of course, that sword cuts both ways. Given the incentives, though, who's research are you going to believe?