Italian court says vaccines cause autism – wrong

So, here we ago again with the trope that “courts confirm that vaccines cause autism.” It all started when I saw a Facebook meme (the lazy person’s way of transmitting information) that stated that some obscure Italian court rules that MMR causes autism. These memes are backed up by blog posts from the usual suspects claiming that courts are confirming that vaccines cause autism mostly based on a oft-ridiculed year-old Italian Provincial Court ruling.

So now because an Italian court says vaccines cause autism (well, actually more specifically the MMR vaccine), we get to reject the mountains of evidence that state unequivocally that vaccines do not cause autism.

If this were just a one-off issue with vaccine denialism in the Italian court system, we could all make mocking jokes about Italy, but apparently it keeps happening.

The official antivaccination cult’s take on the Italian court decision.

To quote one of the vaccine denialists:

At the center of the fifteen-year controversy is Dr. Andrew Wakefield of Austin, Texas. It was Dr. Wakefield that first publicized the link between stomach disorders and autism, and taking the findings one step further, the link between stomach disorders, autism and the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

For that discovery way back in 1996, and a subsequent research paper published by the doctor in 1998, Andrew Wakefield has found himself the victim of a world-wide smear campaign by drug corporations, governments and media companies. And while Dr. Wakefield has been persecuted and prosecuted to the extent of being unable to legally practice medicine because of his discovery, he has instead become a best-selling author, the founder of the Strategic Autism Initiative, and the Director of the Autism Media Channel.

But in recent months, courts, governments and vaccine manufacturers have quietly conceded the fact that the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine most likely does cause autism and stomach diseases. Pharmaceutical companies have even gone so far as to pay out massive monetary awards, totaling in the millions, to the victims in an attempt to compensate them for damages and to buy their silence.

Let’s have fun debunking this!

The ridiculousness of the Italian court decision.

Let’s start with the ruling from a provincial court in the middle of Italy that disregarded all other science.

  1. MrAndy Wakefield‘s paper alleging a connection between MMR and autism has been retracted by the Lancet. The Italian court pretended that real science did not retract the article and, instead, used the retracted article as a basis of their ruling.
  2. Mr. Wakefield perpetrated a fraud, described in detail in a series of articles in the British Medical Journal, here, here, and here. The investigations revealed that Wakefield committed fraud in an attempt to make money from trial lawyers who were seeking to sue MMR vaccine manufactures. That’s bad enough, but it was also discovered that Wakefield owned rights to another measles vaccine, and by destroying the credibility of the MMR version, he had planned to make significant amounts of money in marketing his own. All of these intents to commit fraud, along with the actual commission of fraud, lead to Wakefield being stricken from the rolls of physicians and surgeons in the UK. Of course, none of these points mattered to the Italian Court.
  3. Of course, those Italian courts decided that geologists who were not able to predict an earthquake (nearly impossible to do, scientifically) were guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in jail. The Italian courts obviously are clueless about science, but they have a long tradition of suppressing science.
  4. But let’s be clear. Legal systems are not built on the scientific method. They are incapable of deciding which evidence is scientifically sound and which is not. Courts decide on the law, they are mostly incompetent on deciding on the value (or non value) of scientific evidence, that’s not how they’re constructed. In fact, most court’s foundations are based on what science calls “false equivalency,” because it gives each side the right to make its own claims irrespective of the quality of evidence, and a panel of non-experts (a jury) is supposed to determine which side’s evidence is better. That doesn’t work in real science.
  5. Despite a very large list of peer-reviewed scientific studies (listed below) that completely debunks any link between MMR vaccines and autism, why on earth would the Italian court decide the exact opposite? Well, courts are not infallible, so they occasionally make errors. The ruling of the provincial Italian court of jurisdiction, approximately at the level of a US state district court, can be appealed, which is ongoing. Apparently, the Italian Health Ministry also didn’t present the list of information to that court that I just did above–from comments made in Italian language skeptics blogs, it appears that the Health Ministry laughed off this court case, because it appeared to be a nonsense claim.
  6. Finally, to play the conspiracy game that the tin-hat wearing vaccine deniers love, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Luca Ventaloro, is a well known Italian anti-vaccine advocate who provides legal advice on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations. Ventaloro used, as his  “expert medical witness,”, Massimo Montinari, who has not authored any biomedical research papers on autism, MMR or vaccines; however, Dr. Montinari did author the book “Autismo: i vaccini fra le cause della malattia” and sells his own autism “cure” protocol. As the tin-hat types always say, “follow the money.”
  7. But one more thing. The Italian Appeals court thought it was bogus too. So, I guess if the antivaccine cult wants to believe that courts decide science, oh well, you lose.

The US “vaccine court.”

So, we can ignore the Italian court system when it comes to science, but the vaccine deniers love to make the claim that the Vaccine Court, which is the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims who administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims (the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or NVICP), was paying out “billions of dollars in claims.”

  1. The court was set up as a method to quickly review claims against vaccine manufacturers for injuries from vaccines, and quickly weed out claims that are not obviously related to vaccines. The reason this court was established to shield manufacturers from the  excessive litigious nature of Americans (to both make money and to blame anyone but themselves). It was becoming apparent that the cost of this litigation for manufacturers, usually made by attorneys trolling for business, was going to drive away vaccines from the US market. It wasn’t a threat by pharmaceutical companies, it was reality. So rational people stepped in to create a system that would be fair to everyone.
  2. Let’s be clear. All medical procedures have a risk. Taking acetaminophen has a risk. Having surgery has a risk. And getting a vaccine has some risk, no one says that vaccines are perfectly safe.
  3. Since the “Vaccine Court” was established, over 1.8 billion (billion!) doses of vaccines have been given to children in the United States. As of December 2011, the program, since being established in 1988, has paid out $2,213,229,050.37 to 2,810 people, an average of around $760,000 per claim settled.
  4. This means that the courts are paying around $0.99 per every dose of vaccine delivered. And the number of claims is around 1.8 per 1,000,000 doses of vaccines administered.
  5. And this ignores the fact that courts aren’t deciding on science. Many of the claims are made despite the lack of causal evidence, but more on a Post hoc ergo propter hoc correlation.
  6. In fact, the Autism Omnibus trials, which was specifically set up to adjudicate claims that vaccines cause autism, has rejected all three test cases that claimed that vaccines caused autism, and subsequent appeals of that decision have failed.

But the real news is that there is no news. Because the anti-vaccination lunacy lacks any substantial support for their various tropes about vaccines causing any number of things, including autism, they need to rely on hero worshipping of one of the great scientific frauds of all time, Andy Wakefield, or on a minor Italian provincial court, or on exaggerating claims from the NVICP.

MMR vaccine is unrelated to autism. Period.

On the other hand, there is a wealth of evidence that specifically and conclusively refutes the hypothesis that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism:

The TL;DR summary

Let’s review. The Italian Courts made a bogus decision based on a fraudulent paper from no-longer-a-doctor Wakefield that was withdrawn by the publisher.

After billions of doses of vaccines given, a tiny number of people have made claims that vaccines have caused injury, adding up to about $1.00 per vaccine dose.

Again given that all medical procedures have some risk, the fact that vaccines saves thousands, if not millions, of lives in the USA, the tiny risk is overwhelmed by the huge, scientifically supported benefit. And we’re not even sure if there’s a real causality between the vaccines and those injury claims from a scientific point of view.

Finally, peer reviewed articles in high impact journals establish that there is no link between the MMR vaccine (and in some cases, any vaccine) and autism. MMR vaccines (or any vaccine) do not cause autism. Wishing it so, or claiming it’s so, doesn’t make it so.

Vaccines save lives.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in August 2013. It has been completely revised and updated to include more comprehensive information, to improve readability and to add current research.

Use the Science-based Vaccine Search Engine.

Key citations:

The Original Skeptical Raptor
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!
  • Pingback: Can FTC regulate anti-vaccine misrepresentations?()

  • Captain Happy

    Vaccines clearly cause autism. Of course injecting babies with neurotoxins can cause brain damage. There is no doubt.

  • F.Nazar

    Denial can’t cover truth. This paper published in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology proves that vaccines produced from aborted babies are the
    main trigger of autism and probably other diseases:

  • Slam

    The usual reasoning with MMR causing autism is that vaccines contain chemicals that are confirmed to cause brain damage, and autism may be caused or precipitated or made possible by these chemicals. When your brain is damage, a lot of effects can occur, including autism. Therefore, vaccines are suspected to be a partial cause to autism. Partial.

  • Pingback: Is a Gardasil researcher really against the vaccine?()

  • simonts

    There is no independent scientific evidence whatsoever proving that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. There is plenty of empirical evidence that it does and the courts in the US and in Italy agreed by awarding huge compensations for victims.

  • Ren Gill

    I feel like many of you would change your mind if you had a perfectly healthy child, and then literally no less than a month after vaccination you watch them regress into themselves, constantly screaming, rolling their eyes into the back of their heads, becoming un responsive, loosing their personality.

    Moreso, you would be sceptical that the MMR causes ‘no damage’ if you yourself received the vaccine at age 19, then no less than a month later were thrown into the depths of an auto immune condition. This is what happened to me, it seems to close to be coincidence. For the past 6 years my life has been hell. Up until I was 19 I was perfectly healthy, at the gym 5 days a week, happy, social, great career prospects. Now I am confined to my bed 95% of the time, and have an immune system that is at war with itself

    Many people will say ‘its just coincidence’ but through this journey I have met literally thousands of people who have had similar experiences – too many for it to be coincidence. Even if the MMR vaccine is declared to damage health, it wont cure me, but it might stop other people having to go through the suffering I go through. Then again many people do not react. It could be the MMR saves them from getting measles and dying… who knows. What I know, is i am almost certain the MMR put me in this hell. Make up your own mind. I am very scientifically minded, but I also am aware that not everything on paper is gospel, despite countless scientific studies. Only in the past decade are we discovering the dangers and micro biome shattering effects of antibiotics after things like penicillin which were dubbed the holly grail of medicines. Humans make mistakes. Take everything with a pinch of salt. People cling on to their opinions because they don’t want to loose their sense of identity. All i know is i’m in a living hell, heck… perhaps it wasn’t the vaccine… but it seems much too coincidental that i would get a jab and suddenly start deteriorating.

  • Pingback: Autism and MMR vaccines – still not linked()

  • Pingback: I'm an astroturfer–yeah, I had to look that up()

  • m l
    • m l

  • Hero Miles

    Spin Article.

  • Pingback: Once more about Andrew Wakefield, fraud extraordinaire()

  • Pingback: » Blog Archive » FORBES SLAMS AGE OF AUTISM!()

  • Pingback: Majority Of Autism Increase Due To Diagnostic Changes, Finds New Study | VantageWire()

  • Pingback: Majority Of Autism Increase Due To Diagnostic Changes, Finds New Study « Malaysia Daily News()

  • Xerocky

    There are no scientific or medical controversies about this conclusion.”

    Because we said so, that’s why.

    • Skeptical Raptor

      No because real science says it’s so. What do you have? Lies? Misinformation? Fraudulent claims by Wakefield?

      Yeah, basically, you’ve got nothing dude. Just go find a conspiracy website to whine.

      • Xerocky
        • Skeptical Raptor

          You’re a cherry-picking fool. Proud that you found an article in an “open-access” low ranked journal that is trying to promote itself by criticizing the peer review process. You’re so ignorant that you ought to return to the first grade.

          • Xerocky

            So, because it’s open access it’s false? No. It’s not. It’s consensus at this point loser. Get with the program.


            ” Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”


          • Skeptical Raptor

            No, it’s because you’re cherry picking. And frankly, you know you haven’t read anything but the title. STFU.

          • Xerocky

            I read it. On the other hand you’ve obviously not read the atlantic article.

          • ION Knight

            You do realise you’ve only found a few sources, when there are literally hundreds of findings that completely reject your incorrect assumptions. As usual someone is more happy to believe a celebrity rather than the whole scientific community, sorry but all you have found is a paper discussing that non double blind studies produce less accurate results.

            So find me a study that is double blind study that concludes that MMR is linked to autism(there are many that cover the opposite side), and guess what you won’t find it, all you’ll find is poor research done by nobodies who don’t really have any scientific background.

          • Xerocky

            Learn to read idiot. The articles that I’ve posted discuss how ‘scientific’ papers are for the most part flawed. So I’m not cherry picking anything. The results of the ‘scientific’ community for the most part are. Read the articles that I’ve posted or stfu.

          • ION Knight

            Firstly lets start, yes some scientific papers are flawed it’s what makes a bad scientist (and it’s why we have peer review). If you had bothered to read what I said, you would realize that a double blind study could never be said to be flawed as it’s impossible for bias to enter (but your too thick to realize what a double blind study is I guess).

            Also you do realize by only posting a single article means that your cherry picking? if your so certain that what you have found is correct find me 5 studies that all agree with you and agree with each other, that have been through the scientific review process. Oh wait you can’t ? then stfu to you too.

            But of course you read that article as “we found that some scientific papers are badly written and inaccurate and so all scientific papers on anything are inaccurate”. Sadly yes not all scientists are accurate or even, morally correct in what they have produced, but do you truly believe every country and every scientist that has done a study on this is in the pockets of “big pharma”? All that article says really is that human are human and some make mistakes.

            However sadly your reasoning doesn’t work when it comes to hundreds of studies (with nearly all being reviewed and cross examined, but of course you will look for the only one that agrees with your statements (and the link you gave actually doesn’t, it just says that sometimes scientists are wrong, doesn’t say anything astounding).

            The simple fact is by not vaccinating your child your are giving them the risk of contracting either of the three. So your quite happy to kill your child, cause you were too stubborn to admit when your wrong. Ok, I’ll make it easy for you which would you prefer? your child to die from measles? or your child to have autism? I know which one any sensible person would pick but I guess your not one of them.

            It comes down to simple math, more people died from Measles fact. So far not a single peer reviewed study has concluded that autism has any link to MMR fact. But I guess you don’t even know what peer review is, considering the stupid comments you have come out with. All I can say is I hope your kids are smarter than you cause otherwise they might even die from the mumps (1 in 10,000 people die from it), cause otherwise a once nearly wiped out disease, is being brought back by idiots with no understanding of even basic science.

            Anyway good luck to you sounds like your going to need it, as it seems you have a tinfoil hat welded to your head.

          • Xerocky

            STFU about peer review already idiot. Go brush your teeth you fn’ hick

            “Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals”


          • ION Knight

            Ah thanks for proving my point. You take one article and decide that is the right answer. Shame guess you really just don’t understand and never will. One day I really hope you do understand how BS that article is but, until that point, I leave you to it, seems your lost in your own paranoia, so good luck to you.

          • Xerocky

            Learn to count dummy, I’ve posted 3. Do you ever read what YOU’VE written? You honestly sound like a complete idiot.

          • ION Knight

            On the MMR vaccine causing autism, but again that’s lost on you. Also you post 2 papers not 3 your as much of an idiot as me it seems.
            P.S a website article does not make scientific paper but ah well.

          • Xerocky




            All of which make a great case for why exactly all of the studies folks like you cite constantly aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

          • ION Knight

            One slight problem is that two of the papers you have posted are very out of date (and one isn’t even a paper it;s a web article reiterating another paper you listed and was written by the same person(. We already know that the review process can become flawed (by individual bias etc), however to say that all papers aren’t worth the paper its printed on is just laughable.

            Essentially what you have posted are opinion pieces (until they are cross examined), along with this they also fall under the same problems that they state(individual bias). So in other words this scientific paper has no more validity than any other opinion based scientific paper, so in your methodology this paper isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on aswell, so your argument is moot.

            Sadly it seems you misunderstand the review process, yes it’s flawed on a singular study level. However when this is expanded to multiple papers from multiple sources, the same cannot be as said for the papers you listed which have been cited but none have been crossed examined, so cannot be said to be a valid paper.

            The simple fact of the matter is if you don’t want to believe years of studies done by multiple people proving that MMR and autism have no link, there is nothing I can do to help you understand, as the information is already out there.

            Yes you could say that a single paper is flawed and isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, however that is a single paper consensus is different. You do realise that anything you use today started as a scientific paper and only became the norm after scientific consensus ? Don’t you believe that electronic devices can be used to communicate over long distances? do you believe plants produce oxygen ? Under your mentality these ideas that came from scientific papers wouldn’t be worth the paper they are printed on. Yet you know these to be true, how is this ? it’s call consensus in other words multiple papers had to be made and each paper examined until any opposing ideas are squashed. This is what you seem to be forgetting, posting any paper that hasn’t been reviewed or cross examined, has no validity, which is what the paper you have linked.

            So until you find a paper that actually has been affirmed as true by other people, you cannot state you idea as true. Hell I could write a scientific paper saying the earth is square, doesn’t mean it’s true, it’s just my opinion until other scientist have checked my facts. Until then, my paper and thus the papers you linked have no validity, no consensus through peer review means my paper is not worth the paper it’s printed on, until it’s proven to be fact (also remember citing another paper does not make the original paper more valid, it’s just makes the subsequent paper intrinsically linked to the original paper. So if the original is debunked all papers sourcing it as fact are debunked aswell).

            But no matter best of luck to you, you’ve obviously made up your mind no matter how wrong you are, so there is nothing really I can do to help you understand.

          • Xerocky

            Logic is never out of date. Try READING them.

          • ION Knight

            Then you have proved my point you simply don’t understand how this works. Yes Logic can go out of date when the logic is based on false assumptions (which this has, the papers you listed are literally laughable now, they might have been interesting reading at the time but now those two papers have no more validity than my earth is square idea).

            Yes I have read them and quite frankly they are just completely opinion based, lots of correlation no causation if you don’t understand, that this, is about as far from real science as you can get, I can’t really convince you. They do have a point that peer review is flawed but any scientist has known this for decades , that’s why we have double blind studies (removes bias as noone knows including the scientists themselves), along with peer review and then we reach a consensus (which isn’t just taken once peer review is complete but after years sometimes decades of arguments and counter arguments). Peer reviewing is only part of the process and you seem to be missing that.

            Sadly the more you write the more you just sound like you really don’t understand the process.Instead of looking at a single article that is a single persons opinion on specifically peer review. Go look at the process involved in the science community reaching a consensus, it will help you understand that peer review is flawed but not as much as you think, and that it has very little effect on the end conclusion.

            Finally the atlantic article is just a repost by the same guy who wrote one of those papers, but instead of a published papers it’s a website article so not gonna waste my time with that one. I have read the other two and neither of them have any basement of facts at all (well they try to but fail miserably due to tiny samples that can be easily cherry picked).

            Why haven’t you bothered looking for more up to date articles, that actually have been cross examined? there are plenty out there even some that kind of agree with you (peer review gets discussed alot, especially about how it could be improved). You would be better off using a newer article cause at least it might still be relevant. However sadly for you, for every paper that says peer review is flawed their are a thousand stating, how to prevent these situations (double blind studies for example to cover individual bias) so that science isn’t based on a belief.

          • Xerocky

            “hey might have been interesting reading at the time but now those two papers have no more validity than my earth is square idea”

            You have an idea that the Earth is square? That may explain a few things.

            From the Atlantic article: ““Maybe sometimes it’s the questions that are biased, not the answers,” he said, flashing a friendly smile. Everyone nodded. Though the results of drug studies often make newspaper headlines, you have to wonder whether they prove anything at all.”

            I don’t see how this basic concept has changed. The drug companies, or for that matter whoever is funding the study is in so many words find what they want to find, and not find what they don’t want to find. It’s pretty much that simple.

            Is there any money in finding out that autism is caused by vaccines? No. Not for the makers of vaccines. In fact there’s a huge incentive not to find it. So ‘lots and lots’ of studies that are ‘independent’ (pssst…not really) don’t prove jack shit. Sorry.

            Do you know anything about media studies and PR?

            “Finally the atlantic article is just a repost by the same guy who wrote one of those papers, but instead of a published papers it’s a website article so not gonna waste my time with that one”

            You can type and type and type, but you can’t spend 20 minutes reading one well written article? pfft.

            “I have read the other two and neither of them have any basement of facts at all (well they try to but fail miserably due to tiny samples that can be easily cherry picked).”

            You can say the same about pretty much ANY study. That’s the point.

          • ION Knight

            Wow you really need to read better before you make posts. Either that or your obviously not reading anything I say. The square earth was a reference to an earlier post, which was a made up example I gave you earlier ,maybe you missed it, maybe your just being an arse, instead just try to have an intelligent conversation.

            You do realize not all studies are funded by drug companies ? Alot are done by universities for example who do they have to adhere to ? Nobody. Yes drug companies have done the dirty before and paid off a few scientist but do you really believe every scientist is under the thumb of the drug companies ?

            The problem with the articles you use is not to do with the writing, but that he has no evidence or very little to support his claims, yes there have been a few cases of trying to corrupt the system but how is that any different than any other area? I even gave you an example of a better paper that still agrees in some part (it goes on more about the possible solutions than anything else) with what you are saying without making wild accusations.

            Of course there is money in finding out if MMR is linked to autism, cause guess what, you think the drug companies pay for that, hell no, most were government funded. Of course no single paper should be able to prove anything, and it doesn’t, but were not talking about 1 or 2 papers, cross examination is key here, thats what you should really look at, that’s what you seem to miss.

            Hell no that’s definitely not my area, but there is one thing i do know, and that is this study was only done due to the stupid unfounded paranoia about the MMR vaccine.

            Why should I? if it was someone else writing about someone else scientific paper fine, but it’s literally the same guy in both articles so nothing new could be gleamed from a website page that I wouldn’t be able to get from his scientific paper.

            Yes exactly that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. You should take any single study with a grain of salt, as a single study can become flawed by either the writer or the reviewer. However that’s the point of studies no one study should and does prove any point only helps reaffirm the idea, what it does do is build consensus.

            sorry might have not made it clear, but at singular level papers are flawed in many ways. However we overcome this by cross examination (another person writes a counter paper to the original paper). This is what science is, and these can happen many, many times and can last for years and sometimes decades depending on the complexity. However after a while, there gets a point where there is nothing to counter, and only then is a theory accepted as general consensus, which is why MMR autism myth isn’t really a thing anymore, in the scientific community anyway (if you want to understand this better look up videos on the “standard model”, it’s currently bouncing all over the place and tons of papers are being produced to counter or affirm the ideas).

            So the longer normal people keep thinking that the MMR vaccine is harmful, the more baffled scientists will be. It simple comes down to numbers. You might as a scientist, find a few papers that proclaim that MMR is linked to autism, but the list is very small with no real fact checking put behind it. If on the other hand you look at the significant amount more countering papers that have matured over time, then that is when as a scientist we decide that we can confirm an idea and only then never before.

            Here’s a good rule of thumb with any theory that circulates, if you can only find a single paper on any subject disregard it, if you find two separate papers from two separate people (and I mean properly separate, e.g. not same person country etc) then listen to it but take it with a grain of salt. If you find a wealth of papers on a subject, accept it, as otherwise you’ll never learn anything new, that is actually correct, and you’ll spend your life reading through paper after paper without any real benefit to you.

          • Xerocky

            Here’s my rule of thumb: if they ridicule you, THEY’RE scared shitless an you must be on to something.

            I know what I know by what they ask and don’t ask in terms of the patients that they see. There isn’t any good data being taken on MRR and Autism, so the studies are bunk. If they cared, if they were trying to find anything, they’d be taking more data. They’re not. I know for a fact.

            I mean, even the notion of a study is bunk from the get go. Don’t do a study on a small sample group, take data on EVERY person and crunch the numbers. Studies are a holdover from a time when we didn’t have the computational power to crunch numbers, now with pretty much unlimited computing power, why bother extrapolating numbers from a small study group? The reason: because you MUST be trying to obfuscate the truth.
            I know from what I’ve been through that they’re not really taking data on Autism. So, all of the studies on MRR are crap. Period.

            “Of course there is money in finding out if MMR is linked to autism, cause guess what, you think the drug companies pay for that, hell no, most were government funded”

            Do you honestly believe that the CDC isn’t under the power of big pharma? Come on.

          • ION Knight

            I won’t reply to alot of this cause alot is crazy person talk.

            But you do realise that a study can include computational power, you really don’t understand do you, most studies are based on computational data, are you crazy enough to think that we wouldn’t use a computer to crunch the data of 95,000 ppl ? are you mad ? Most studies are based on computer simulations so I have no idea what planet your living on but it definatly is not on earth.

            Also you do realize there are other countries in this world that do studies? you do realise all scientist collberate between countries ? You seem to think that you live in vaccume and that other countries don’t do research. If your so certain that your country is hiding something from you do some research outside your country. It’s pretty simple once you do you’ll find that most studies aren’t done by american’s, and you’ll realize the things you are saying are simply crazy.

            Pretty much decided there is no point in this argument (yet It’s fun talking to idiots). But you have a whole bunch of crazy stuck up in your head, so I’ll leave you to it, think someone is going to be very paranoid once their older but hey we live and learn. 😛 Good Day.

          • Xerocky

            Exactly idiot. STFU already. You know that if there were studies that showed a link, they’d be called out for whatever trumped up problems, and they’d be dismissed as ‘unscientific’. Only the ones that are approved by the CDC, and Universities that get funding from big Pharma, and that would be that. Parrots like you would be all flapping your wings, skawking the same crap…so who cares? Shut up about it already.

            If they cared at all they’d be asking more people more questions, and then they’d crunch THAT data, instead of very very limited numbers. I know how it works in your version of things; it’s deeply flawed.

          • simonts

            And what are you doing? Falling for(or more probably shilling for) the corporate paid and owned “science”….

          • simonts

            Another ignorant uneducated name-calle!

      • Slam

        I think there should be meta-studies that control for conflicts of interest. And there should be control for previous knowledge and/or beliefs of those who conduct the studies.

        • Skeptical Raptor

          Why? Because you believe in conspiracies?

  • Graham Gambier

    Here is the video about the admission of the autism cover-up:

    • Skeptical Raptor

      Oh geez, you’re behind the time dude. Paper got retracted. Wakefield is still a criminal whose culpable for the deaths of thousands of children. A

      I’m glad you believe in Science Fiction. You probably think that aliens abduct children and reptilians control our government. LOL.

      • Graham Gambier

        Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for reasoned argument! Are you claiming that his testimony to his own actions is of no probative value? What then is the mechanism? Did he lie in this video and falsly accuse himself then recant, or did he make a mistake and then correct himself? Perhaps, just perhaps, he was ‘got at’. Whoops! my tin-foil hat just slipped.

        • Skeptical Raptor

          Well dumbass, you might be right under normal conditions. But you are closeminded, a science denier and show the intellect of my left testicle. Since ALL of the scientific evidence leads to only one conclusion, that vaccines do not cause autism, how should I have have a discussion with you? You’re ignorant. You lack education. You are closedminded. And your lack of logic is amazing.

          So, yeah, at that point, all you get is an ad hominem. If it hurts your feelings go to some other blog and whine how stupid you are to others. I’m sure you’ll get sympathy from your fellow ignorant fools.

          • jamieson

            lmao Antoine Bechamp and Dr. Wilhelm Reich both refuted the germ theory of disease a long time ago.
            Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:
            “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

          • Skeptical Raptor

            They did? The refuted it? Please provide the peer-reviewed article that supports this.

            As for Marcia Angell, she made a few points. But I’d rather read an article that outlines good design and results than read lies and misinformation from someone who thinks that Germ Theory has been refuted. I mean some people deny it, but some people deny evolution, climate change and other scientific facts.

          • jamieson

            It’s not in any articles, because over 6 tons of Wilhelm Reich’s books were burned by the US government during the red scare after being vilified by the AMA for treating cancer patients, the fact that his books were burned is even on wikipedia. Let’s keep this civilized please, just saying, I’ve been researching the US medical system for years because my aunt was diagnosed with bipolar, my brother with aspergers, my cat and dog died from cancer years ago, my uncle died from liver cancer last year, and my cousin is currently going through chemo for breast cancer. I’ve been looking for a cure for cancer for years, I’ve concluded that while Wilhelm Reich was not right about everything, he was certainly on the right track for treating cancer patients and did not deserve to be treated the way he was. The books you need to read are The blood and it’s third element by Antoine Bechamp, and The Cancer Biopathy by Wilhelm Reich. You won’t find a peer-reviewed refutation of the germ theory of disease but you will find extensive and repeatable experiments and evidence in those books.

            Starfield reveals the American medical system kills 225,000 people per year—106,000 as a direct result of pharmaceutical drugs.

            April 15, 1998; “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.

            The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

            Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

            Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

            The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and and administered.”

            So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, without being admitted to hospitals.

            Dr. Aleksandra Niedzwiecki: “Commentary on the Safety of Vitamins.”

            Here are two key quotes from her article:

            “In 2010, not one single person [in the US] died as a result of taking vitamins (Bronstein, et al, (2011) Clinical Toxical, 49 (10), 910-941).”

            “In 2004, the deaths of 3 people [in the US] were attributed to the intake of vitamins. Of these, 2 persons were said to have died as a result of megadoses of vitamins D and E, and one person as a result of an overdose of iron and fluoride. Data from: ‘Toxic Exposure Surveillance System 2004, Annual Report, Am. Assoc. of Poison Control Centers.'”

            Summing up:

            No deaths from vitamins (2011), and three deaths (2004) from vitamins/iron/fluoride.

            106,000 deaths every year from pharmaceutical drugs (Starfield).

            Between 76,000 and 137,000 deaths from pharmaceutical drugs every year in hospitalized patients (Lazerou).

            The masses are treated to non-stop PR on the glories of the US medical system.

            “US military casualties of war,” the grand total of all military deaths in the history of this country, starting with the Revolutionary War, is 1,312,612.

            In any given 10 years of modern medical treatment? 2,250,000 deaths (Starfield). Read the study “Is US health really the best in the world.” Published in the JAMA

            so considered those facts coming straight from the AMA before you deny the information I’m about to give you.

            Here is information on Bechamp and Reich:







            Also concerning evolution and climate change, I’m not going to deny those things, but based on the discoveries of Reich and others like Nikola Tesla, the actual facts about those topics may not be what you think they are, consider this information:


            Reich was Sigmund Freuds protégé and at one time considered a prodigy by the psychoanalysts, they didn’t like how political he was though, writing books like The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Based on my research of Reich and others, I would say that Pure Darwinian evolution is beset by Reichian, Bergsonian, and Lamarckian evolution.

          • ION Knight

            Wow suppose this world is full of idiots you can’t help them Skeptical Raptor you just banging your head against a brick wall. People will do anything to affirm their views no matter how wrong they are.

            What makes me laugh is that these people think that studies done by multiple countries by completely different people with no interaction with each other, are all in a conspiracy together. But ah well if their dumb enough to not give their kids MMR, then they deserve everything they get, shame it effect other people when stupid people do things their own way.

          • jamieson

            And this is what I’ve concluded about the medical system based on the Starfield study, they are not looking for a cure for cancer, and the whole debate surrounding Obamacare has been nothing but a distraction from the fact that the medical system is killing people at an alarmingly high rate, and Obamacare is coercing people into that system. Try this analogy, you work in some branch of the gov’t dealing with transportation, every third car is faulty and falls apart causing an accident at speeds higher than 40mph, as a result politicians pass legislation to lower the driving age so next year there will be millions more drivers on the road. what do you do? You can help me bring this information to people, I’m positive I’m on the right track with my cancer research and I plan on telling as many people as possible in the next few months because I more or less know how to cure cancer. It’s just a matter of being thorough with my research so I know what can be done so that the treatment will work every time

          • Xerocky

            “peer reviewed’ = think what WE tell you to think.

          • Skeptical Raptor

            No peer-review is a method to determine the quality of research. Top journals get cited the most because they have top reviews.

            So, you still have nothing dude. You’re still fairly lame.

          • Xerocky

            It’s also a method of quieting the voices that those in power fail to approve of.


          • Skeptical Raptor

            Yes, go ahead and refer to an “open access” journal with a low impact factor where people publish because they can’t get stuff into real journals.

            A real scientist examines any published article for value. They weigh the quality of the journal, the reputation of the authors, the methods, the analysis and the conclusions. Real science is constantly peer-reviewed and cited by others. That’s what makes for REAL science, not the fake science presented by your close minded ignorant self.

          • Xerocky

            “A real scientist examines any published article for value. They weigh the quality of the journal, the reputation of the authors…”

            In other words they cherry pick for their own financial ends, and do whatever they can to join in the ridicule of anyone who dares to come in between themselves and their funding.


            “in short, at least in biomedicine, there’s not much we know for sure about the reliability of peer review.”


          • jamieson

            Hey, are you just going to ignore the elephant in the room or are you actually going to address the facts I’ve presented to you. It would be much more productive than directing tons of ad hominems against people skeptical of what you’re calling “REAL SCIENCE”, you should learn to actually analyze IDEAS instead of SOURCES

            Here’s a medical study
            I haven’t cited before: “A new, evidence-based estimate of patient
            harms,” by JT James (J Patient Saf, Sept. 9, 2013).

            The key quote:

            “…the true number of
            premature deaths [in US hospitals] associated with preventable harm to
            patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year.”

            Putting it bluntly, the US medical system kills 400,000 hospital patients every year.

            This is a huge
            increase over the previous figure I’ve cited: 119,000. That number comes
            from Dr. Barbara Starfield’s review, “Is US health really the best in
            the world?”. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the
            American Medical Association. At the time, Starfield was a revered
            public-health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

            Starfield told me, in a 2009 interview, that she was unaware of any serious government effort to fix the system.

            In her review,
            Starfield also concluded that, every year in the US, the medical system
            kills 106,000 patients as a result of the administration of FDA-approved
            pharmaceutical drugs.

            You can Google “FDA
            why learn about adverse drug effects,” and you’ll find an FDA page which
            states that, indeed, 100,000 people die every year in the US from
            ingesting these medicines.

            So let’s put these numbers together.

            400,000 patient deaths
            every year in US hospitals. 100,000 deaths every year from medicines.
            These deaths are directly caused by the medical system.

            500,000 deaths every year.

            That would be 5 MILLION deaths caused by the US medical system every decade.

            Roughly 2.5 million
            people die every year in the US, from all causes. So 1 out of every 5
            deaths in the US stems directly from the medical system.

            But that’s not all.
            The 2013 study cited above also concludes: “Serious harm seems to be 10-
            to 20-fold more common than lethal harm.”

            Translation: every
            year in the US, hospitals cause between 4 million and 8 million
            incidents of serious harm—which means coma, temporary flatlining,
            stroke, hemorrhage, unnecessary major surgery, life-threatening
            infection, etc.

            Neither Starfield’s
            nor JT James’ 2013 review explicitly considers vaccine damage. As I’ve
            reported before, the best estimate I’ve found was made by Barbara Loe
            Fisher, of the National Vaccine Information Center.

            It takes into account
            the fact that the reporting system for vaccine adverse effects is broken
            and only a fraction of harm is recorded. Understanding that doctors and
            patients only report between 1 and ten percent of adverse effects from
            medical drugs, Fisher uses that comparison to conclude that, every year
            in the US, between 120,000 and 1.2 million adverse effects occur from

            Looking over the figures in this article, you can decide what the US medical system is really doing to people.

            You don’t need the
            medical propaganda of mainstream media. You don’t need the hype of
            doctors who appear on television to promote their work. You don’t need
            government assurances. You don’t need the ceaseless warbling of
            “non-profit” medical fundraising groups with their causes. You
            certainly don’t need the flag-waving promotion of Obamacare—which will
            bring many more people into the very system that is wreaking all this

            And finally, note
            this. The medical powers-that-be and their Pharma brethren are fully
            aware of the public figures I’m citing. They know. And many doctors do,

            But they roll on.

            Over the years, I’ve
            sent some of these numbers and journal-citations to mainstream medical
            reporters. I’ve never received one reply, much like you never replied to the FACTS I’ve presented to you

          • Skeptical Raptor

            Wow cherry picking to support your stupidity.

          • Xerocky
          • jamieson

            Just going to ignore facts, huh? Pretty lame. There are many experiments outlined in the books I cited, you’re arguing from ignorance.

          • Skeptical Raptor

            I have thousands of pieces of evidence. What have you got? Nothing.

          • simonts

            Your only “evidence” is name-calling, based on your posts here. Maybe you should look up the meaning of :”evidence” in dictionary, IF you know how to do that.

          • simonts

            It could,be that IF it was not full;y owned and operated by the pharma-medical mafia, to maximize and perpetuate they enormous profits. Science, by its very definition, should be independent of financial interests.

          • Skeptical Raptor

            So, you just want to go from one lame conspiracy theory to another. Here’s a way to do it. Get off your fat, internet browsing lazy ass, go to college. Get good grades by not smoking weed and protesting GMOs. Then get a Ph.D. from a good university because you got good grades. Then do world class research. Then show us whatever you want about vaccines. Then publish it. then stand in front of your peers, show some balls, and give them evidence.

            Otherwise, you’re just a fat lazy douche sitting on your couch playing video games without one iota of brains.

          • simonts

            Your IQ seems to only enable you to be an ignorant name-caller. I feel sorry for you.

          • jamieson

            I’ve been looking through your articles. Your logic and the science you’ve been citing is full of holes and you’re supporting junk science that’s killing people. Hope you decide to get your act together soon before the gene drift from GMOs spreads to all of the organic crops. Idiot

          • simonts

            Most people who know something about science and are not paid and owned by the pharma-medical mafia agree that the germ theory is false. Even Pasteur relized it on his detath bed.

          • Xerocky

            Anybody who uses the phrase ‘science denier’ is an a hole.

          • Skeptical Raptor

            Only a true science denier would say that. Wonder who’s the real asshole. LOL

          • Xerocky

            The reason that only an a hole calls someone else a ‘science denier’ is because ‘denial’ aka debate, is what scientific inquiry is based upon. Using that idiotic phrase exposes you as a hack. You think you’re taking the high road because you’re citing ‘peer reviewed’ studies, and then ridiculing anyone who thinks about anything past that. It’s pathetic.

      • simonts

        Using your own web site to make your case, huh? Very original, but no cigar. You seem to believe in the Goebbelsian maxim that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth.

  • Pingback: Mumps vaccine effectiveness and waning immunity()

  • Pingback: The fictional CDC coverup of vaccines and autism–movie time()

  • chefjas

    Well it now seems that your attempt at “debunking” has been officially debunked.

    Dr. William Thompson of the CDC has come forward and ADMITTED he lied about the connection between MMRs and vaccines. If I were you, I would delete this blog post as quickly as possible.

  • Pingback: Regarding the "science made mistakes" tropes? Debunked by real science()

  • Pingback: The antivaccination cult’s idea of what constitutes “peer-reviewed” | Skeptical Raptor's Blog()

  • Pingback: Yes, the autism rate is rising–vaccines aren't the cause()

    • ION Knight

      Yea and I hope you don’t kill anyone by not having a vaccine that completely eradicated meisels, and only came back after stupid people presumed a celebrity had a better understanding of medical science than the whole scientific community.

      • Xerocky

        ” completely eradicated meisels”

        So…how did ‘meisels’ as you call it, make a comeback then? LOL Dumbazz??

        • ION Knight

          My apologizes I was referring to the western world where we introduced MMR, as I thought that would be obvious, but I guess I shouldn’t expect that. I really should state ever word as it seem statements on the Internet can be lost on people. Anyway last post of mine not wasting my time with you Xerocky, as your completely screwed anyway, so can’t help you might aswell help someone younger or with a brain that might not yet be completely closed minded.

    • Defenestrator

      I notice that you didn’t include YOUR credentials.

      • ION Knight

        Why should he, he doesn’t need to these are studies done BY SCIENTISTS not him but ah well tinfoil hat nut jobs for u.

    • Skeptical Raptor

      I was chief janitor. I would give the floor outside of the CEO’s office a bitchin’ polish.

  • Pingback: Shocking news–antivaccine chiropractor ignores science()

  • Pingback: Vaccination Court and Autism - Page 3()

  • Pingback: IlFattoQuotidiano: “Bimbo autistico dopo vaccini obbligatori, ma il ministero rifiuta indennizzo” | Sciencedrome()

  • Pingback: Doctors should stop asking parents’ opinions on vaccines | Skeptical Raptor's Blog()

  • Pingback: Vaccine denialists really hate Bill Gates–Part 2()

  • Pingback: Vaccines aren't tested–Myth vs. Science (updated)()

  • Pingback: Vaccine denialists hate Bill Gates()

  • Pingback: Anti-vaccinationist is lead speaker at CAA’s National Development Forum | reasonablehank()

  • Pingback: The Zombie Apocalypse of antivaccine lies–they just won't die()

  • Pingback: Alex Spourdalakis. | Self-Pollution.()

  • Pingback: Vaccine deniers think the murder of Alex Spourdalakis is acceptable()

  • Pingback: Regarding those mistakes made by science...()

  • Pingback: Science is not based on absolutes–Richard Dawkins proves that()

  • Pingback: Court Rulings Don’t Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link | buy stock picks()

    • ION Knight

      The thing above all you have to remember is that a vaccine will be never used unless it provides a net benefit to it’s people. Vaccines are scary, but for any government to bother buying anything it would have to save them money (which for example MMR does).

      It’s a great view to take with new drugs as sadly any first group of people to use any new drug will always be guinea pigs , but things like the MMR vaccine have been around for decades yet still people won’t listen. The stupid thing is that their are actually some drugs you should be shouting about, but yet MMR seems to be top of the list even with a long line of studies confirming their is no link.

      It actually annoys me people won’t give their children MMR which might actually save their life, but they will put their child on anti-depressants absolutely nuts.