“IF the MMR was RANDOMIZED, the MMR would have shown a greater rate of Autism.”
So you conclude prior to seeing the results?
The study actually proves the opposite, you cannot accept that since you already concluded otherwise.
Besides, if these children already show signs of autism, why would the MMR vaccine be withheld, as these parents already know that the vaccine has nothing to do with their childs condition.
Your not making sense.
“No. Autism is usually diagnosed around age 3. But parents saw SIGNS of AUTISM earlier, so stopped
vaccinating – this is a very common scenario.”
I feel that you are confusing your position, autism is caused by vaccines, yet those that did not get vaccinated and were diagnosed with autism, are still unlikely to vaccinate, why?
Also, are you now saying that all autism cases showed signs prior to receiving the MMR shot, it seems that is what you are implying, this is actually in line with what the experts have to say, yet they use this as a claim to show that autism was present in these children prior to the MMR Vaccine, only that it was not yet prevalent which is why they have not been officially diagnosed.
I applaud you for finally getting it right. That most cases of autism are not associated with the MMR vaccine, despite what the fact that these parents are now scared to vaccinate their other children.
(these ‘other children’ btw, despite having lower vaccination rates, even though they were never diagnosed with autism, so for sure do not have the signs of autism that you referenced, have higher rates of autism, not lower.