“partially vaccinated children have a higher autism rate then fully vaccinated …Because of Healthy User Bias. ”
As I pointed out earlier, you dont understand “Healthy user bias”
Also, if it is due to a bias, then they DON’T have higher autism rate, just that a bias falsely makes it appear that they do.
Are you saying that partially vaccinated have a higher autism rate than nonvaccinated, or that they appear too, but that in fact you’d expect their autism rate to be the same
“although their Autism was probably caused by the vaccines they received when their Pregnant Mothers were..”
Amazing, you are literally just making things up
“partially vaccinated children have a higher autism rate then…fully unvaccinated.”
what about the Philippine study?
As for your 11th “study ” the Mawson study.
It is not valid.
Here are some reasons why:
1. There was no randomization, people voluntarily signed up and recruited their friends
2. They did not look at medical records, they labeled people as vaccinated” or unvaccinated” based on the word of the mothers
3. This was not a real study “We did not set out to test a specific hypothesis about the association between vaccination and health” (You love making up “basic science” rules, having a hypothesis that you test is areal one that you need
4. What journal was this published in? Is it a reliable journal?
5. Who funded this study, you dont trust pharmaceutical, companies or the CDC, who funded this one?