I haven't read all of that Deborah, but I started here:
|May 27, 2010 — Delaying childhood vaccinations, or not getting immunized at all, does not provide any neuropsychological benefits for children at 7 to 10 years of age and might even result in poorer outcomes on some measures, a new study suggests.
No mention made of the exclusion criteria. It is a pretty confident statement to make given that this sample can in no way be representative of the population that is vaccinated. And the fact that adverse events like encephalitis are excluded. And that as far I have understood, Autism as an outomce was not included.
|"Parents may have heard that it's not safe to give their children all these vaccines in the first year of life, but we actually looked at kids 7 to 10 years later and they’re absolutely fine," Dr. Smith said in an interview. "That's a talking point for pediatricians to have with families in the office, although it may not convince everyone."
Yes, all of them were fine. Excpet for the ones who were excluded from the study. ANd of course the vaccines are repsonsible for the improved performace in the testing? It couldn't possibly be socioeconomic status? (to be fair a secondary analysis did find the socioeconomic status was a factor)
And I am sure this will be the take home message paediatricians get. And most will not read the study, let alone read it critically. (not becuase they are bad people, they just are very busy people)
And finally, this is not everything, but IMO it is relevant:
|Dr. Smith and Charles R. Woods, MD, MS, are or have been unfunded subinvestigators for cross-coverage purposes on vaccine clinical trials for which their colleagues receive funding from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, MedImmune, and Novartis. Dr Woods has received honoraria for speaking engagements from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, and MedImmune and has received research funding from Wyeth and Sanofi Pasteur.