People enter my field because they feel strongly about human health--not because they are emotionally driven nitwits who couldn't logically think their way out of a cardboard box.
In order for something to cause something else, there has to be a clear mechanism. For example, measles causes brain damage because viruses enter brain cells. The infected brain cells no longer function as brain cells and the immune system kills them. The more brain cells that are destroyed in this manner, the more severely the brain is damaged. That is a mechanism. On the other hand, dead viruses injected into an arm muscle are nowhere near the brain, are incapable of entering cells, and are completely destroyed within a few days. There is no mechanism to tie them to any brain function. Imagining that vaccines are somehow capable of causing autism is like imagining that filling your car tires with air is somehow going to cause the air intake filter to become dirty.
I’m sure many a “medical researchers” who “felt” they knew a lot about microbiology & biochemistry sure had a hard time coping with fact that their pharma-medi god deliberately rushed deadly medications to market and obfuscated inconvenient negative results, sacrificing payients on the altar of profits.
This statement shows that you clearly have no clue about the medical research world or the regulatory process. First of all, researchers don't "feel" they know a lot about microbiology, biochemistry, immunology, chemistry, molecular biology, pharmacology, etc. They know their expertise, and they are very cognizant of the limits of their knowledge. Being a biochemist, I have a very good understanding of how the biomolecules that make up living organisms function, and how their functions are disrupted by pathogens. On the other hand, if you asked me about kidney function, I would have to consult the medical literature before giving you an answer.
The process to bring a drug from discovery stage to regulatory approval is very long and drawn out. Unlike in your fantasy world where it seems you imagine that each time a chemist mixes up a new compound, he then rushes off to the FDA to get permission to make it into pills and sell it, in the real world, chemists mix up hundreds of compounds that are then painstakingly screened before the most promising among them is selected for further testing. This discovery process takes years. Once the most promising drug candidates are selected, they undergo several more years of testing--first, on cells, then on animals, and only then on humans in phase 1 trials. Fewer than 1% of all prototype drugs (including vaccines) make it past phase 1 trials. In the rare cases where a drug prototype does not get nixed, the journey from discovery to regulatory approval can theoretically take ten years--but only if all the stars line up. In reality, the process takes 15 or 20 years (or more). Furthermore, a drug cannot be used in a specific group of people unless it has been tested in that group. So, for example, if a vaccine is tested in adults between ages 18 and 65, it can only be administered to that group, and not to anyone who is not within that age range. In addition, most countries have a requirement that drugs have to be tested on their own citizens before they will license those drugs for sale in their countries.
Anti-vax fearmongers like Barbara Loe Fisher and her ilk do not want people to be educated about the processes of FDA regulation, medical research, how drugs and vaccines work, etc. etc. Once again, try to apply some logical thought here. The anti-vax movement is a leftist idea. Radical leftists love for people to die--their ideal world does not contain humans. And they are trying to scare you into not protecting your children against diseases that are responsible for countless millions of deaths throughout history. Why on earth do you feel that they have your children's best interests at heart?
Say you’re sorry and donate proportionate salary and assets to compensate vaccine injury victims damaged by your profession’s negligent propagandizing slandering responsible parents who demand full disclosure of vaccine safety.
Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.
Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.
Gallagher CM1, Goodman MS.
Author information
Abstract
Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.
PMID:
21058170
DOI:
10.1080/15287394.2010.519317