The topic of the thread itself is totally misleading. Perhaps intentionally. The actual paper is entitled: "Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism,"
So not Vaccines, but Proteins & Polysaccharides in Vaccines, which didn't even stop the JPeds authors from misleading folks in their editorial about this article, which is entitled "The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by "Too Many Vaccines Too Soon" which the study did not evaluate, it evaluated 'too many proteins & polysaccharides (antigens) too soon' . . . All these verbal slights of hand undermine informed consent right at the source, before it is further undermined by outlets like MSNBC & NPR with have an agenda on this issue that is NOT to inform & stimulate debate, but to increase compliance.
I have heard NPR overtly and clearly lie about Vax info that can be so easily fact checked on the Pkg Inserts (last year I heard them say the effectiveness of DTaP was 98%, now the effectiveness after 4 doses varies by brand (and also component, it is more effective against T than aP, for example) but it NEVER approaches anything resembling 98% from any manufacturer) . . . I would consider it a simple mistake if NPR didn't do things like this so consistently around this topic alone.
That is not science, that is something other than science . . . Call it governance, public health, public policy, but it is NOT science. And if we live in a time that calls this type of study and media behavior 'science' then that is scarier than 100 vaccines. Because it signals that the ProVax side has become so enraptured with DOGMA & a Pharma can do no wrong ethos, that they have lost all allegiance to SCIENCE and a spirit of inquiry . . .
Science is a spirit of accuracy, informed consent, and inquiry . . . So for a scientific article on any other topic, the actual article would be titled 'Are increasing exposures to antibody stimulating proteins and polysaccharides associated with a risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders?'. But since the study's authors & data contributors had already made up their minds ahead of time (a priori) the title does reflect their true heart and intention . . . Insofar that it is a declarative title. Look @ scientific literature, you will find that Vax literature is very unique: the studies are held to a lower standard (no true placebos, rarely if ever blinding) and there are more declarative titles like this and more non-study, single author 'position papers' . . .
If I had to make a decision ONLY on the behavior of the two camps, in terms of a spirit of inquiry and accuracy, my decision would be very very clear @ this point . . .
This is quite possibly the best post EVER on this forum.