Perhaps you are willfully ignoring my question, which of course is your choice. If the data that was discarded was indicative, it would show up in the overall population.
Does it?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/autism-rates-higher-among-certain-immigrants-minorities-1403543838
It would seem that there is not a 300% increase in the incidence of black males getting the MMR vaccine and having autism.
So, knowing that the data does not pan out for the population, what scientific use is this data that demonstrates that there is a 300% increased incidence of autism among black males after the MMR vaccine?
Oh, right, the CDC tossed out this bad data in their report, so they are reaching into other reports. Perhaps their influence stretches to the recent Danish report? Which just about mirrors the same percentages in the WSJ report. Again, no 300% increase in the incidence of autism among black males.
Show me ANY report on the planet from ANY country which indicates that there is a 300% increased incidence of autism among black males. Aside from the one dataset which was tossed out in the Georgia study, none has mirrored these results.
Now of course, you’ll yet again ignore this.
Would this be the Denmark report by Thorsen?
Who stole $1M from the CDC/NIH and was under indictment in Denmark?
Who Colleen Boyle, in congressional testimony, was so fast to indicate that ‘2 studies don’t make a portfolio of research’, knowing he was involved in way more than just 2 studies? in refuting the importance of his studies to their dataset?
I just hope you’ve gotten your MMR up to date. Surely, if you and your children haven’t had adult doses you are rushing down to your local Walgreens to get them. Correct? I’d hate for you to criticize the unvaccinated only to realize that your immunity had worn off and YOU were the unvaccinated you were hating on.