I'm trying to find a copy of the actual study.
Funny, Dawson's comment is a scientifically different conclusion from the study's conclusion.
Further perspective can be gained here: http://autism.about.com/b/2009/09/10/is-autism-speaks-mis-spending-its-money-your-opinion-requested.htm
Many of the comments are interesting as well.
Seems like there is a question of whether Autism Speaks is a front group for the pharmaceutical industry, who is directly benefitting from Autism Speaks, while families of severely autistic children, who are desperate for immediate help, are not benefitting an any way shape or form.
But even the mildly affected autistic community dislikes Autism Speaks: http://www.examiner.com/article/why-autistic-people-don-t-like-autism-speaks
I suspec that that dislike extends to Chief Scientific Officer Dawson, who pulls in a salary of $650K and oversees funding of studies that attempt--and fail--to find the non-vaccine cause of autism.
For those whose autism IS linked with vaccines, this is like attempting to prove that cigarettes are not linked with lung cancer.
Is this the study? I found it on your link above.
Why don't I trust Elsevier, you ask? It is part of the Reed-Elsevier group.
"The Lancet, the journal the paper was published in, is owned by global publishing giant Reed-Elsevier. Reed-Elsevier own 2,460 scientific journals, as well as the magazine New Scientist."
"Reed-Elsevier's CEO, Sir Crispin Davis, is a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline. And his brother, Sir Nigel Davis, was a judge who withdrew legal aid from families who claimed their children were damaged by GlaxoSmithKline's MMR vaccine."
"Worse still, in 2009 the pharmaceutical giant Merck was sued for paying Elsevier to create a fake journal to promote their products."
(And, for those of you interested, Reed-Elsevier was also the company Peter Power of Visor Consultants was running mock terror drills for on the morning of 7/7.)
Well, some of us actually have children at home today, so it's not like we have unlimited time to search for and analyze studies, let alone post 20 times a day.
But so far, what jumps out at me (including some copy/paste):
"Of the remaining 752 controls included in the analysis, 186 had an SCQ score <16 but had indications of speech delay or language delay, learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or attention deficit disorder, or tics, or had an individual education plans."
186 of the 752 controls had possible symptoms of autism. Those were the CONTROLS? Nearly 25% of the CONTROL group may have had possible symptoms of autism????
Also, they studied the possible relationship of autism to total antigenic exposure. Most of the scientists who ARE seriously questioning whether vaccines are causally related with autism are not worried about antigenic exposure as they are worried about the effect of things like aluminum and thimerosal. "Admittedly, this approach assumes that all proteins and polysaccharides in a vaccine evoke equivalent immune responses, whereas some proteins actually may be more likely than others to stimulate an immune response.14 "
"How evidence of early neurodevelopmental delays would have affected our results is not clear; it might have resulted in lower vaccination levels if parents were concerned about vaccinating their children, or possibly higher vaccination levels through more frequent contact with the healthcare system. " BUT THEY DID NOT COMPARE VACCINATED VS UNVACCINATED CHILDREN.
"We thank Dr Paul Offit for his assistance in determining the antibody- stimulating protein and polysaccharide content of specific vaccines.
Aha--now we know why:
1) the focus of the article is on the relationship between vaccine antigen exposure and autism (rather than the cumulative effect of heavy metals from vaccines)
2) why there is no comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (surely if they were combing through the records of three different managed health cares, they could have found some unvaccinated individuals, even back then).
Most importantly, it explains the MASSIVE discrepancy between the conclusion of the study and Geraldine Dawson's ridiculous conclusion:
STUDY CONCLUSION: "It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines; however, we found no association between exposure to antigens from vaccines during infancy and the development of ASD with regression."
Geraldine Dawson's conclusion: "This study shows definitively that there is no connection between the number of vaccines that children receive in childhood, or the number of vaccines that children receive in one day, and autism.”"
Well, now that we've explained that the conclusion of the study is not at all what your thread title says it is, what would you like to do about it?
In my skimming it appears to me that they took about 1000 kids who had been vaccinated and looked at the number of antigens received by all of them via vax and then determined the group of kids with autism got the same number of antigens as the group of kids without autism, which ya know makes sense if they are all on the same or similar vax schedules.