This is a great example of narrow-minded thinking. Basically, you are saying that you believe everything the vaccine manufacturers tell us. In fact, you're repeating it, verbatim: "Without vaccines, thousands of children would be dying of vaccine-preventable disease!!" Which diseases?
Where are the newspaper headlines telling us about the thousands of children who died in the US from these common, mild infections?
Mumps? Measles? Chicken Pox? Based on whose studies? Ask people who grew up in the 1960's and before, and they will tell you that the only disease that ever had any complications was polio, and every mainstream source discussing polio says that 90% of those who had polio had mild or even subclinical infections, and recovered without complication.
Flu? The vaccine is ineffective, and in most cases, laboratory-confirmed influenze is mild. Pertussis? Well, there is a disease that CAN be severe in young infants--but the vaccine is contraindicated for the most at-risk, and does not prevent transmission anyway. In addition, recent studies indicate that the virus has mutated, and the vaccine is now not adequately effective, even if you don't consider the risks of the vaccine.
But your take-home message is, "OMG, we must vaccinate with each and every vaccine or thousands of children will DIE!! Because the snake oil salesman vaccine manufacturer says so!!!!"
And that's precisely the fear-mongering campaign that has been mounted in the last 25 years or so: "vaccinate your child or you risk your child dying!!"
Now, that would be fine and dandy if the pediatricians also said, "But the risk of dying from one of those diseases is vanishingly small; with today's advances in nutrition, hygiene, sanitation, and medical treatment, even if you get one of those diseases, you're not likely to have complications. And by the way, we do see a small number of severe adverse reactions to the vaccines; we don't understand who gets those reactions, or why, but the number of severe reactions has increased on par with the increase in the number of vaccinations. There is no screening procedure in place to identify those more likely to react, and we have difficulty even telling a severe reaction from a unrelated-but-severe event. If you do have a severe reaction, we don't actually know how to treat it, and also you cannot sue us, or the manufacturer."
But they don't, do they?
They also don't say, "The current recommended schedule is timed to give the biggest number of vaccines to the infants whose parents don't have a pediatrician, or who don't bother to take their infants to the well-child checkups. It's not timed for the best outcome for your child. We can certainly spread them out for you so that, if your child does have a reaction, we'll actually know which vaccine caused it."
Nope. They say exactly what teacozy says, "Vaccines save lives! Without them there would be thousands of children dying from preventable diseases!!" Not a murmur of the conflicting evidence, or of the evidence of harm.
Originally Posted by teacozy
"The Kiggs study is severely flawed."
And this is the other major problem with a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study that looks at autism. If there was no link, anti vaxxers would just say the researchers were biased, that they had a reason to prove that vaccines were safe, that it's all about money etc etc etc etc. They would only accept a study that was done by an anti vaxx group and then the other side would also argue bias. It would serve absolutely no purpose. Would you accept a study that was done by a vaccine company or the government if it showed that there was no link between autism and vaccines?
[All the studies that currently do not show a link were funded/directed either by a vaccine company or by the government. Or both.]
I seriously doubt it. Not to mention all the confounding factors there would be if we cherry picked certain children from certain households that choose not to vaccinate. The studies already cherry-pick subjects. The last study chose children who had obvious symptoms of autism and/or developental disorders (but no official diagnosis) as a supposed "control group" to contrast with children who had official autism diagnoses. Location, diet, environment, education etc.