Logical Fallacy

[PeterCanessa Oh]

Madelaine, sadly there are all the people who, having reached an unimformed decision, then decide to criminalise the opposite opionion.

 

Melita Magic wrote:... giving vaccines to infants should be criminal

 

(Melita - if you only meant that about government-enforced vaccination I misunderstood and apologise)

I didn't want to get into vaccination row because it's not a rational debate.  Apart from logical fallacies and rhetorical devices one side utterly ignores the statistics.  In case anyone cares, there is pretty good consensus that about 2.5 million children do not die of childhood diseases thanks to vaccinations (eg; http://www.path.org/vaccineresources/childhood-immunization.php).  Now, if there are even 250,000 developing something-someone-calls-autism-although-there-isn't-a-definition because of those vaccines (unlikely since no-one can find any) then that means they are 10 times more likely to die if you do not vaccinate them than they are to get 'autism' if you do.

Now if Medhue and Melita are saying it's better to have a dead baby than an autistic child then they are entitled to their opinion.  It's not one I share though and I certainly wouldn't want people sent to jail for saving lives.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

Im confused.. everything i am reading says that Autism is caused in-utero. how can a vaccine cause this?

not  trolling, i actually want to know.

 

[Medhue Simoni]

If you had watched the video that I posted then you'd have all the citations you'd ever need. Obviously, you are arguing with me, instead of actually watching the video because you are so brainwashed you wouldn't dare watch something that might ruin your whole paradigm. I'm sorry, I've never felt the need to hold grown adults hands and lead them to the truth. I have my own path to follow and do not have the time to hold your hand. Big Pharma has you right where they want you, constantly in fear. So afraid, you can't watch a simple video or even better, do your own research. All the better tho, cause you'd likely find a couple site right off the bat, spreading the same lies as you are, and you will stop, and call that research. I've already done my research, which covers a good 100 years of medical documents from around the world, and it is the sum of all those documents that I come to my conclusions. You, on the other hand, read what you are told to read. I actually look at the studies to determine whether it is pure propaganda. You don't even consider that the HUGE pharma corporations would ever lie, nor that every person in the CDC comes directly from big pharma. I'm sure they are all extremely honest people. The same people that approved asparatame.

[Innula Zenovka]

For those of us who don't have an hour and a half to spend watching a video from 2005 (which, therefore, can't refer to any more recent research), would you mind giving us the references for the studies he cites that you say are so convincing?

You will have seen that the BMJ article I referenced cites several articles in support of its contention that no studies have been able to replicate Andrew Wakefield's purported findings about the MMR triple vaccine and autism, which isn't surprising since it transpired he faked the results, apparently in the hope of marketing diagnostic kits and making some US$43 million a year from them.

 

[Dillon Levenque]

Canoro, I'm glad you pasted everything here; I might have resisted going to look at the link and even if I had might have left before reading it all. Now it is right here where everyone can see it.

All of these fallacies can be seen in our lives, and by no means just here on this public forum. I know of them. I try my very best not to fall victim to them in my own thought and even more so in my own speech. But I have to admit there were some in that list that had me saying, "Well, yeah, maybe". I think we are all of us guilty of doing some of these things some of the time.

It may be that only the purest thinkers among us can escape the blinders that these fallacies put on our thoughts. I don't know. I do know that it is important that I try my hardest NOT to let that happen. I admit in advance I probably won't be successful all the time, but I will at least acknowledge the fact that if I do fall victim to one of these I'll be wrong.

Thanks for the list.

[Medhue Simoni]

 

I know many people think of the Buddha as just another idol, but if you really listen to his words, or the closest thing to them, he was really just a philosopher, IMO.

[Medhue Simoni]

You don't have an hour and a half to know or get some incite into an issue about your health or your child's health. Is that what you are asking me? Sorry, I spent my time making the buddha video, cause I already did the research myself.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

:-) Commonly known as "that fat old fool" to the Zen schools.

Bhuddism is the only major religion that:

• Has no god
• Has jokes in the 'official' texts (there isn't anything like a bible or koran either)
• Has never had a war fought in its name (Bhuddist have fought wars but not 'for' Bhuddism)
• Features in "A Fish Called Wanda"

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

You don't have an hour and a half to know or get some incite into an issue about your health or your child's health. Is that what you are asking me? Sorry, I spent my time making the buddha video, cause I already did the research myself.

---

No.  I am simply asking you if you are able to provide any better details of these articles you say are so persuasive than "he mentions them somewhere in this hour-and-a-half long video".   I'd rather spend my time reading the articles themselves than listening to this chap's account of them.

Furthermore, the video, as you will be aware, was made in 2005, which means it cannot possibly refer to any research conducted in the last six or seven years.   So I'm intererested to know what articles published since then make of the research on which it relies.

[Medhue Simoni]

Hense why I explained that I wanted to find the video of the 2nd doctor, because he's done extensive research on toxicity and the blood/brain barrier. I saw the video, like 6 months ago, and it was amazing. He's not just a journalist with a PHD, like the first video. Plus, most of his talk was about his own research.

I have my own work to do. I work from home, so If I want to spend all day doing my own research, I can. I'm sorry that most people goto their slave jobs everyday and don't have the time to have a garden, or actually watch their kids or actually do any research on their own. This is why I will post videos instead, to save people some time. In the end, it is always better to do your own research. Don't listen to me. I just showed you the door, you have to walk thru it. Or, you can think of me as just a wackjob and forget about anything I said. Take the blue pill.

lol

[Dillon Levenque]

 

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

I have my own work to do. I work from home, so If I want to spend all day doing my own research, I can. I'm sorry that most people goto their slave jobs everyday and don't have the time to have a garden, or actually watch their kids or actually do any research on their own.lol

---

You do yourself few favors with this incredibly ill-informed comment. People all over the world, even people who really DO have slave jobs, or the next thing to them, still find time to watch their children, look at their gardens, and learn.

 

 

Edited for rudeness

 

[Lindal Kidd]

Methinks Medhue needs to re-read the OP much more carefully.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

nor that every person in the CDC comes directly from big pharma. I'm sure they are all extremely honest people. The same people that approved asparatame.

---

My aunt works for the CDC in Maryland.. she has never worked for Big Pharma.... broad brush much?

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

nor that every person in the CDC comes directly from big pharma. I'm sure they are all extremely honest people. The same people that approved asparatame.

---

My aunt works for the CDC in Maryland.. she has never worked for Big Pharma.... broad brush much?

---

 

Yep, now you can discount everything else I've said also, and feel good that you learned everything you need to.

[Canoro Philipp]

if we dont make the research ourselves we can not discard the possibility that mercury, being a poisonous chemical, plays a part in damaging the human body, if certain parts of the brain gets damaged, its very possible that our thoughts are going to be different than the typical, just like autism is.

i do not support the idea 100% because i am not a doctor, therefore i do not have first hand proof of it, but i do not deny its posibility being a poisonous chemical, and its capability to damage the human body even in small proportions, some parts of our body are more fragile than others, so it may take a minimal amount of that chemical to do a temporal or permanent damage.

its good that there are people that are looking and researching if what big pharma says is true, and we should listen to them, to not fall in the intentional or unintentional lies that might come from them, and to avoid being one sided, i believe that mercury might be very linked to what causes autism, based on the proof that the scientist give us, they might be other causes for autism, but we can not discredit mercury because of the many proof that support that research.

some people are born autistics, and they may never been vaccinated, but mercury can get to the baby thru the mother or the father, others say that after a certain psychological trauma in their lives some can become autistics, or to put it in another way, they can show traits that are very similar to autistic people, such as rocking back and forth, difficulty to look into the eyes of other people, lack of social skills, that might be true, if it is, it may be that certain characteristics are an extreme form of psychological self defense based on the amount of trauma recieved, such as the lack of speech and avoiding the look into the eyes and the look for solitude.

autism is a mystery that is of great concern to society, we are getting closer and closer to the truth reuniting proof, to this day, many possibilities has been explored, as we continue, we might find out exactly what cause it, how many variations of it there is depending of the amount or how it happened, and how the characteristics of autism that are an obstacle for autistic people can be removed.

@medhue, its ok to talk about autism in this thread, this is general discussions and we should be able to talk about any subject.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Okay, I've watched the entire video and have some notes. I have quoted (sometimes paraphrasing slightly) at various points in the video and offer my comments thereafter.

6:40  "You know what, the EPA is right, but you have to interpret it a certain way."
The doctor implies that the "certain way" is improper without offering any explanation for why that's so. In truth, one must almost always interpret things “in a certain way”. It’s already becoming clear that Dr. Ayoub is doing precisely that, interpreting data in a way that distorts it to his ends. The transient and chronic effects of heavy metal exposures are different, and treating them the same, as the doctor does, does not mean they are the same.

6:55  “That’s like taking a six months supply (of a cardiac drug) today.”
Cardiac drugs do not act on the human body at all like heavy metals do. Digoxin, a popular cardiac drug used to treat rhythm disorders, has a low therapeutic index (the margin of safety between efficacy and toxicity), warfarin does too, it’s a life saving blood thinner at low doses, an effective rat poison at high doses, causing lethal bleed out. The doctor (the video states he is an MD) was surely taught this in medical school.

17:40  “They could have killed a horse with the doses they were giving.”
This was offered as proof that mercury was unsafe. On careful analysis, this statement actually works against the claim and simply states the obvious that horses are bigger than people and if you give someone enough poison to kill a horse, you shouldn't be surprised if it kills a human.

34.56  “The number one cause of death in the US is not heart disease or cancer, it’s medicine.”
Having read “To Err is Human” during a period in my career when I worked on methods to reduce medical errors, I am familiar with this particular misrepresentation of the facts. There are indeed hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in which adverse drug reactions, medical errors and the like are proximal causes. The suggestion that medicine is therefore the number one cause of death is fallacious as it ignores the deaths that would have occurred in the absence of our health care system. If I wished to make an analogous argument for heart disease, I would claim that, while heart disease killed 699,647 Americans last year, the complete absence of hearts in Americans would produce more than 300 million deaths. So, though hearts aren't perfect, I'm glad we have them.

44:40 Dr. Ayoub posits theory #3, that somebody (never mentioned) might be using mercury as a population control tool (or for genocide).

51:50 It is suggested that, during the Nixon administration, the government decided that population control might become necessary and there was no reason to tell the public if and when the government does something about it.

57:10 A female reporter writes about GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), provoking some unnamed nefarious entity to fly black helicopters over her house for three weeks. This makes me wonder if anyone has done a study of the efficacy of flying black helicopters over people’s houses.

1:00:00 “Doesn’t good health promote (population) growth? If you can’t feed yourself, why would you want ten kids?”
Ayoub’s conjecture does not agree with the data, as you can see in Hans Rosling’s research. Population growth slows as infant mortality declines. Rosling's work is known to many people, including me, but apparently not to Dr. Ayoub, who claims to have worked hard to understand these things.

1:00:39 “Nigeria’s growth was leading Africa, so it doesn’t surprise me that GAVI was immunizing the heck out of Nigeria.”
Dr. Ayoub is suggesting that governments were conspiring to reduce Nigeria’s population by vaccinating them (presumably to inflict the fertility reducing properties of mercury on the unsuspecting population). Oddly enough, if you believe Rosling’s suggestion that lowering infant mortality and increasing lifespan will lower the birth rate (because women don’t feel the need to have replacement children to counter the infant mortality rate), vaccinations will indeed lower population growth by improving quality and length of life.

 

At this point, I stopped taking notes because because the mountain of logical fallacies was threatening to bow my desktop. If I wanted to curb world population growth, would I taint vaccines with mercury in small doses, causing an anecdotal death rate? Or would I simply find ways to make the vaccines less effective, killing millions of people in the process? Apparently Dr. Ayoub thinks governments are smart enough to carry out genocidal conspiracies of global proportion but too stupid to find effective ways to do it. Simply avoiding intervention in the Congo probably eliminated a few million people, didn’t cost a dime, and placed the blame right in the Congo.

The toxic effects of heavy metals are somewhat known and research continues. There truly is a sort of grandfathering effect in medicine, where old methods and practices do not receive as much scrutiny as new ones, simply by virtue of their having been in place for so long, with no obvious deleterious effects. This is no secret. But this not mean that there is no scrutiny.

But, to suggest that vaccinations are a tool to control the world’s population by increasing infertility, with the side effect of autism makes no sense, even ignoring intent. It takes very little research to show that any harmful effect of mercury is vastly outweighed by the benefits of vaccination. Dr. Ayoub’s ignorance of some very well understood relationships casts the veracity of his entire argument into doubt.

CDC reports a 57% increase in reported Autism cases from 2002-2006. The removal of thiomersal from many vaccines should provide some epidemiological data points over the coming years which will reveal or dispute the mercury causation theory.

So Medhue, I have watched your 90 minute video and found it unconvincing. I might have been swayed by Dr. Ayoub if he hadn’t exhibited a convincing lack of understanding of things that were actually not central to his argument (population control) but upon which he dedicated the bulk of his presentation. He also used misleading analogies in the areas where he should have known better. I do hope that the mountain of logical fallacies in Dr. Ayoub's presentation don't dissuade people from keeping track of the issues he attempted to address, and I don't think it will. I have just spent three hours bringing myself up-to-date on this issue, which would not have happened if not for your post.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

nor that every person in the CDC comes directly from big pharma. I'm sure they are all extremely honest people. The same people that approved asparatame.

---

My aunt works for the CDC in Maryland.. she has never worked for Big Pharma.... broad brush much?

---

 

Yep, now you can discount everything else I've said also, and feel good that you learned everything you need to.

---

 

and that statment you just made would be this....

COMPOSITION/DIVISION

 

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it.

 

Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.

 

Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.

 

 

[Medhue Simoni]

Thanks Canoro, for keeping and open mind. I'm sure that is a good sign for you and your family's future. The road to good health is a very long 1 with much to learn, but it is all out there for people to find. I, myself have been struggling to break all the bad habit that I've accumulated over the years. It's a long road. Look into a raw foods diet when you can find the time. I'm just sad that your intial post was hijacked by the autism discussion, as it deserves being seen and discussed, all on it own merit.

 

@Madelaine - I understand your frustration, but it is mostly just your inability to believe that the world is much different from what you think. IMO, you have a vision of the world, and fighting tooth and nail to keep that vision intact in your brain. Although the good Dr uses some creative language, he is never misinterpreting the data, you just choose to think he is. You should reread the Logical Fallacies, as it's merely a way to honestly interpret the truth. If you notice, the good Dr points out when he is sighting data that is not completely scientifically sound.

Although, I very doubt that you will, I would encourage you to take a serious look at true medical history, as there is so much that backs up what he says, that it's quite scary. Do some research into Eugenics. Hey, you did watch the video, and that's a big step. Personally, I tend to watch anything, irreguardless of how I feel about it. You never know when you'll find that nugget of information that leads you to that next discovery. Learning is life, don't ever stop.

To every1 - I apologize if I was, at all harsh with any1. This issue is near and dear to my heart. Our children should be the biggest priority, not the illusions that the elite try to embed into our minds. My goal was to open some minds, even a crack, if possible.

 

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

6:55  “That’s like taking a six months supply (of a cardiac drug) today.”

Cardiac drugs do not act on the human body at all like heavy metals do. Digoxin, a popular cardiac drug used to treat rhythm disorders, has a low therapeutic index (the margin of safety between efficacy and toxicity), warfarin does too, it’s a life saving blood thinner at low doses, an effective rat poison at high doses, causing lethal bleed out. The doctor (the video states he is an MD) was surely taught this in medical school.

---

Which is probably why he used that example, because in the context of what he is talking, it suits very well. The simple fact that you don't understand his analogy given your own knowledge with his example, shows that you don't want to understand it, you just want to find fault where there is none.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

1:00:39 “Nigeria’s growth was leading Africa, so it doesn’t surprise me that GAVI was immunizing the heck out of Nigeria.”

Dr. Ayoub is suggesting that governments were conspiring to reduce Nigeria’s population by vaccinating them (presumably to inflict the fertility reducing properties of mercury on the unsuspecting population). Oddly enough, if you believe Rosling’s suggestion that lowering infant mortality and increasing lifespan will lower the birth rate (because women don’t feel the need to have replacement children to counter the infant mortality rate), vaccinations will indeed lower population growth by improving quality and length of life.

 

---

 

Did you quote your statement directly out of Bill Gate's handbook, cause it is the same exact arguement that he makes, hence why he believe injecting poison into people is good for them. Vaccine advocate always make the case that dispite some bad side effects, overall, it is good for the population. This is a completely socialist ideology. As an individual, I don't care if it's overall good for every1, if it hurts me or my child, I don't want it, and I have the inherit right to say no, irreguardless of the made up fears that form the whole reasoning around vaccines. If you get injured, you should just suck it up and take it for the team, right?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

6:55  “That’s like taking a six months supply (of a cardiac drug) today.”

Cardiac drugs do not act on the human body at all like heavy metals do. Digoxin, a popular cardiac drug used to treat rhythm disorders, has a low therapeutic index (the margin of safety between efficacy and toxicity), warfarin does too, it’s a life saving blood thinner at low doses, an effective rat poison at high doses, causing lethal bleed out. The doctor (the video states he is an MD) was surely taught this in medical school.

---

Which is probably why he used that example, because in the context of what he is talking, it suits very well. The simple fact that you don't understand his analogy given your own knowledge with his example, shows that you don't want to understand it, you just want to find fault where there is none.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

1:00:39 “Nigeria’s growth was leading Africa, so it doesn’t surprise me that GAVI was immunizing the heck out of Nigeria.”

Dr. Ayoub is suggesting that governments were conspiring to reduce Nigeria’s population by vaccinating them (presumably to inflict the fertility reducing properties of mercury on the unsuspecting population). Oddly enough, if you believe Rosling’s suggestion that lowering infant mortality and increasing lifespan will lower the birth rate (because women don’t feel the need to have replacement children to counter the infant mortality rate), vaccinations will indeed lower population growth by improving quality and length of life.

 

---

 

Did you quote your statement directly out of Bill Gate's handbook, cause it is the same exact arguement that he makes, hence why he believe injecting poison into people is good for them. Vaccine advocate always make the case that dispite some bad side effects, overall, it is good for the population. This is a completely socialist ideology. As an individual, I don't care if it's overall good for every1, if it hurts me or my child, I don't want it, and I have the inherit right to say no, irreguardless of the made up fears that form the whole reasoning around vaccines. If you get injured, you should just suck it up and take it for the team, right?

---

What will you do if you are diagnosed with cardiac atrial fibrillation and prescibed digoxin, which has a that low theraputic index? Taking even sliightly more than you should could kill you. What if you are diagnosed with coronary artery disease or have a stroke and are prescribed warfarin (coumadin) to thin your blood? Will you refuse to take it because it's used as rat poison?

The dose is the poison, Medhue. There are a great many materials which have therapeutic benefit in the correct amount and are lethal in the wrong amount.

You have no knowledge of what I do or do not "want to understand". To suggest you know otherwise is arrogance for all to see.

[Innula Zenovka]

Thanks, Madelaine.   You've saved me a lot of time, it seems, watching that.

Did he, at any point, actually come out and say, "and we know that such-and-such a vaccine causes (or is associated with) autism because of such-and-such a study, published in such-and-such a journal"?  

I want to check his references, you see, and in this context I'm not so much interested in the general, and non-contentious, proposition that, taken in sufficient amounts, mercury is bad for you as I am in the specific proposition that a particular vaccine is bad for children, be it because of the amounts of mercury it contains or for some other reason.   

It's all very well for people to dismiss studies they don't like as being rigged by "Big Pharma" (thus economically combining "ad hominem" with "The Texas Sharpshooter," I think) but I like to look up research myself.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

What will you do if you are diagnosed with cardiac atrial fibrillation and prescibed digoxin, which has a that low theraputic index? Taking even sliightly more than you should could kill you. What if you are diagnosed with coronary artery disease or have a stroke and are prescribed warfarin (coumadin) to thin your blood? Will you refuse to take it because it's used as rat poison?

The dose is the poison, Medhue. There are a great many materials which have therapeutic benefit in the correct amount and are lethal in the wrong amount.

You have no knowledge of what I do or do not "want to understand". To suggest you know otherwise is arrogance for all to see.

---

For 1, I never suggested that I knew anything besides the fact that vaccine's connection to autism was not debunked.

What would I do?  I wouldn't take the poison, cause I'm not a dumb animal who just does what they are told. It's my health, not the doctor's health, which means I'm responsible for it. Taking the poison is not the only option, which many doctors assume about many problems. Here take this pill. Then take it again and again and again, until you are hook or reliant on that pill. Don't go out and change your life so that you won't have these problems, right? Just take the pill.

Plus, I'm not afraid to die. So, this means, that every option is not on the table.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Medhue Simoni wrote:

The simple fact that you don't understand his analogy given your own knowledge with his example, shows that you don't want to understand it, you just want to find fault where there is none.

I replied:

You have no knowledge of what I do or do not "want to understand". To suggest you know otherwise is arrogance for all to see.

He then said:

For 1, I never suggested that I knew anything besides the fact that vaccine's connection to autism was not debunked.

So, in one sentence you state my lack of understanding as a "fact", then state that this fact shows I "don't want to understand". You then completely contradicted yourself by claiming you don't know that fact.

And now we get to the point in such arguments that seems unfortunatley unavoidable. I find myself face to face with someone who will not argue rationally. What am I to do besides wish you well?

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Medhue Simoni wrote:

The simple fact that you don't understand his analogy given your own knowledge with his example, shows that you don't want to understand it, you just want to find fault where there is none.

I replied:

You have no knowledge of what I do or do not "want to understand". To suggest you know otherwise is arrogance for all to see.

He then said:

For 1, I never suggested that I knew anything besides the fact that vaccine's connection to autism was not debunked.

So, in one sentence you state my lack of understanding as a "fact", then state that this fact shows I "don't want to understand". You then completely contradicted yourself by claiming you don't know that fact.

And now we get to the point in such arguments that seems unfortunatley unavoidable. I find myself face to face with someone who will not argue rationally. What am I to do besides wish you well?

---

Oh, there is no doubt that I "can" be arrogant, at times, and emotional. I hope that means I'm human. What we all need to understand is that there is a manipulation of our minds going on all the time, all around us, by everyone. I egged you on with my arrogance to get you to watch the video. Reread my comments. And.... you watched the video. Notice how many tried to get me to post references, and how that was others trying to manipulate me. I'm not saying it's evil. It just happens all around us.  I've had conversations with you about autism before, if I remember correctly. I already knew where you were coming from. No, I don't know what you do, but it gets more and more obvious everytime we have this exchange. You are biting your tongue to keep from telling me. I don't like to beat around the bush, and I always like to be straight forward with people. It saves every1 a ton of time.

As for me stating facts. I think you'd do better assuming that unless some1 states something as a fact, it is really just their opinion. I hope that clears any confusion there. If I have caused you any grief, please accept my apology. Plus, I appreciate your level responses, and that you don't just run into a thread, call people crazy and run away. That, I can respect. Take care.

[Innula Zenovka]

Going back to your first post, you said,

---

 OMG, your last example is soo very bad tho. For 1, vaccines causing autism has never, ever been debunked. This is a complete lie. The reality is, that all credible science says there is some link, but not all other factors have been weeded out.

---

I don't think any credible scientist would make any general statement about all vaccines, but I simply asked you to provide a reference to a recent study, in a reputable scientific journal, that says "there is some link between autism and such and such a vaccine, and here are the epidemiological figures that suggest that".  

Since you said, in the same post, "there are few people that stay up to date with this issue than I," you should not find this too difficult.   I didn't find it at all difficult to find an article in the BMJ from January 5 2011 saying, of the now retracted article that started the scare,(references in the BMJ article)

---

Authored by Andrew Wakefield and 12 others, the paper’s scientific limitations were clear when it appeared in 1998. As the ensuing vaccine scare took off, critics quickly pointed out that the paper was a small case series with no controls, linked three common conditions, and relied on parental recall and beliefs.

Over the following decade, epidemiological studies consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

By the time the paper was finally retracted 12 years later, after forensic dissection at the General Medical Council’s (GMC) longest ever fitness to practise hearing, few people could deny that it was fatally flawed both scientifically and ethically.

---

The BMJ say that, since 1998, "epidemiological studies [have] consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism."   You, therefore, must have anothe vaccine in mind.   Which one is it?