https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101

Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism -

A Nationwide Cohort Study

Abstract

Background:

The hypothesized link between the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism continues to cause concern and challenge vaccine uptake.

Ok, so right here in the first few paragraphs, the authors readily admit their "motivated reasoning".

they are "concerned" about vaccine uptake,

so therefore they want to reassure the public, by doing a "study", that they already know what the conclusion will be.

notice also that they deliberately limit their study to just ONE vaccine, instead of studying ALL vaccines.

then they extrapolate their findings on ONE vaccine, and assert that it implies to all vaccines.

this perfectly illustrates the vaccine quack playbook.

1. vaccinate a bunch of people

2. wait to hear back on all the side-effects and adverse reactions that were caused by the vaccine

3. do a study, where they "can't find the evidence" that the vaccine actually caused the problems.

4. announce to the world that vaccines didn't cause the vaccine problems.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/04/699997613/a-large-study-provides-more-evidence-that-mmr-vaccines-dont-cause-autism

NPR: A Large Study Provides More Evidence That MMR Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

So this "new" study is actually a follow-up to the notorious "Danish Study", where a man named Poul Thorsen was "allegedly" committing fraud, and is presumably still a fugitive running from the FBI, unless he has been caught, which i doubt, because they don't want the publicity.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa021134

http://google.com/search?q=Poul+Thorsen+wanted+by+FBI+danish study

"The idea that vaccines cause autism is still around despite our original and other well-conducted studies," Hviid wrote in an email. "Parents still encounter these claims on social media, by politicians, by celebrities, etc."

"We felt that it was time to revisit the link in a larger cohort with more follow-up which also allowed for more comprehensive analyses of different claims such as the idea that MMR causes autism in susceptible children," he added.

Other researchers agree the study provides powerful new evidence supporting the safety of the vaccine.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Dr. Saad Omer and Dr. Inci Yildirim of Emory University write that studies like this can help doctors refute unfounded claims and fears.

see what they are trying to do here?

they do these studies for the sole purpose of NOT finding the evidence.

then they shove these "studies" down the throats of concerned parents who are in the doctors office trying to decline a vaccine, yet are unprepared for the focus-group tested vaccine propaganda that is about to used against them.

also, see how they show that they are upset that rumors of vaccine problems persist, in spite of their efforts to produce "studies" that can never seem to be able to find the evidence?

they just can't believe that you would believe your own friends personal experience, over the vaccine quacks vaccine studies.

Hviid hopes the findings will reassure parents.

do you suppose that Hviid would publish and publicize his study, if he had somehow been able to "find the evidence"?

has Hviid ever demonstrated competence in "finding the evidence"?

"The study strongly supports that MMR vaccination does not increase the risk for autism," the authors write in the Annals of Internal Medicine. "We believe our results offer reassurance and provide reliable data."

Here Paul Offit says, quote,

"You can never really say, MMR doesn't cause autism, but frankly, when you get in front of the media, you better get used to saying it, because otherwise people hear a door being left open, when the door shouldn't be left open"

10 second video (save this video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cHZa8t98w

What i take this statement to mean is "you can't prove a negative"

Which is a very important point, and important argument.

This particular argument is the atheists primary defense when challenge to "prove God does not exist"

The atheists one and only rebuttal to this argument is,

"we can't prove a negative..."