Dooms,
You have to prove that the theory regarding withholding vaccines for children that were later diagnosed is true.
In fact the study shows that its nonexistent. Besides for the fact that there would have been a difference in the autism rate. Since if the bias that you claim truly existed, how is it that there is no difference in autism rate. How is it that with such a large group of children, regardless how you splice it the numbers are almost the same?
If this were some littly fuzzy study like the 11 children wakfield claimed had autism from the MMR you could start making these bias claims. Otherwise you have to explain how the autism rate remains the same in all groups.