[Prosthetic Conscience]

Which measles are we even talking about anyway? The CDC link PC posted was for rubeola, a disease which is mild in comparison to measles proper but can affect pregnant women.

So which measles is it?

"Rubeola" is the medical technical name for what we all call "measles" (practically everything has a Latin-derived name in medicine). See eg https://www.healthline.com/health/rubeo ... s-pictures or anything else you get by googling "rubeola". You may be thinking of rubella, aka German measles, which is less severe but, as you allude to, can harm an embryo of a pregnant woman, causing blindness and other disabilities.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Whooooaaa!! Stop right there.

I wrote:
VS probably vaccinates his kids because he knows it'll protect them. - I am not implying anything but that you'd vaccinate your kids because you want to protect them. I never suggested the alternative and I wasn't being sarcastic.

I was, if anything, questioning your argument against vaccinations, by implying you already know they work. if you vaccinated your kids, you really aren't convinced of what you're arguing against.

I was NOT, repeat, NOT implying that you were a bad parent.

Thanks I appreciate it, I thought you were being viciously cynical and sarcastic. I apologize for making the assumption, but its not like you don't ever get yellowcard and skulls for getting nasty on PoFo

No harm, no foul. Like I said in my main address to you, I think you are pretty decent and hoped that you were not implying that I wanted to do harm to my own children or was intentionally trying to be a bad parent.

I appreciate the clarification. All good here.

VS. Your analysis of the data, obviously harvested from Anti-vax sites is extremely superficial. You are drawing conclusions not supported by the evidence. Further you do not understand the process by which epidemiologists determine the effectiveness of a drug. And this includes many factors that you have not even mentioned.

Most of these charts can be found on both pro and anti-vaxx sites. The Measles charts, minus the projection line, can be found on the Philadelphia College of Physicians vaccine history site which is a pro-vaccine blog for the organization. Some of these charts can be found on the CDC, NHCS, NHIC, among others. Likewise, many of the charts that I did pull from anti-vaxx sites are sourced to these same places that use them for their own purposes, as well as government and academic sources in the UK.

Yes, i'm an anti-vaxxer, so I frequent anti-vaxx sites, but if I post charts or data from an anti-vaxx site, just like if were to post something from wikipedia, I make sure that such can be traced to third party sources; however, keep in mind, there is a double-standard here. There is typically only anti and pro vaxx sites. Any government chart I could complain is pro-vaxx and distorted (of which most of my charts are government charts). If I were to do this, you would call me a conspiracy theorist and dismiss me. Why shouldn't I do the same with your bitching here?

Fortunately, I am willing to deal with this obvious hypocrisy and so most of my charts can be found on government websites from both the United States, UK, Canada, and Australia. Despite the fact that I too could claim that they are bias.

In this era, none of us have the luxury of impartial sources, for anything; however, if conversation is going to be productive, and if someone produces a chart that, as you say, can be easily googled, then google it and see if the only place it exists is on an anti-vaxx site and then give your reasons why it should not be trusted.

Just because an anti-vaxxer used the chart, does not mean the chart has been compromised, that is both the fallacy of presumption and is a variation of the genetic fallacy. Dismissals on such grounds are not logical, everything must be evaluated on its own merits in civilized debate. I am sorry if you are not up for the task, in spite of your posturing.

Do what you want with your children. You have obviously resorted to deception to avoid the law. I see where your moral compass lies. Suffice it to say I see your actions as unconscionable and your arguments pseudo-scientific claptrap. I sincerely hope no other parents are reading and believing the garbage you put forward. The blood of their children could very well be on your hands.

None of which you have dealt with. My exemptions are legal, and even the weakest of my exemptions and objections has been shown to befuddle my opponents here, drawing their ire, but not their arguments. I hear a lot of insults and mockery, but not much in the way of rebuttals. Its amazing really, you guys mock the anti-vaxxers as simpletons and you can't even hold you own on your strongest point (the necessity of vaccines to save lives based on historic precedent) against my weakest exemption (the philosophical exemption which merely claims they are unnecessary). We haven't even discussed the religious exemptions, medical exemptions, charges of harmful ingredients and adverse affects, or the issue of litigation pertaining to vaccine manufaturers being prevented by the government.

Hell, we have only discussed Measles, probably the best chance you had to prove a necessity, but which can only prove an improvement of a natural trend in mortality decline by AT BEST 13%, being a moot point by 2017 anyway as this 13% only accelerated the inevitable state of negligible mortality by fifteen years that would have occured by 2010 anyway with NO vaccine. This is, sadly, you best example and its still a super-shitty argument to require the forefeiture of parential rights. Literally, you want to strip parental rights on the basis of bullshit. I can't fucking wait to talk about Typhoid or Dyptheria....let alone all the diseases that virtually disappeared WITHOUT ANY VACCINE. Its amazing, we haven't even scratched the surface and my wife and I haven't even gotten warmed up.

Sad.

It is NOT my wife and I who sound like the ideologues. Let the record bear witness.

BTW. Have you ever seen a case of tetanus? I have. It is ugly. The recovery process is long and the outcomes not good. It is frequently fatal. . I would keep your children indoors if I were you.

Also one of the most preventable ailments without a vaccine which showed the greatest decline post WWII with the mechanization of farming in the United States, prior to any vaccine being introduced (1948). Perhaps cutting your leg with a scythe and "rubbing some dirt in it" was bad advice. Aside from that, Tetanus is easily prevented, no vaccine necessary and early concerns can also be preemptively treated with antibiotics.

How about that deadly Scarlet Fever? Oh wait, thats right, not an issue anymore and no vaccine was ever produced for it.

Perhaps we should make one just in case and FORCE people to get it even though its threat for causing public mortality was neutralized?

This is the exact same logic for Measles and all of these other diseases for which we have vaccines. They are not a threat anymore and for the same reasons Scarlet Fever is not a threat, which is improved sanitation, sterilization, anti-biotics, and common courtesy. To therefore require people to forfeit parental rights to do that which cannot be proven a necessary to save their lives and the lives of the general public, is insanity, not good medicine. It represents the enslavement of the establishment to cartels and the willingness to deprive parental rights based on medical mythology, not medical history.

[ness31]

"Rubeola" is the medical technical name for what we all call "measles" (practically everything has a Latin-derived name in medicine). See eg https://www.healthline.com/health/rubeo ... s-pictures or anything else you get by googling "rubeola". You may be thinking of rubella, aka German measles, which is less severe but, as you allude to, can harm an embryo of a pregnant woman, causing blindness and other disabilities.

wtf? I’m going to assume they’re pronounced differently

roobeeola vs roobella

[Godstud]

I apologize for making the assumption, but its not like you don't ever get yellowcard and skulls for getting nasty on PoFo

I've been "letting myself go" a bit much lately and not giving a fig, and that's why. Normally I avoid them, but sometimes people just rile me up so much...

By pro-vaccination sites, you mean medical science ones and not pseudo-science anti-vaccination sites, right?

Unlike some conspiracy theorists and most Anti-vax people, I don't think that the government is out to get us by giving people free vaccinations, and that the CDC is just there to throw around shit science. Sorry. I am just not buying this argument.

[Sivad]

Debate Swirls Around the Science of Epidemiology
Public health journals regularly include articles that take swipes at the methods, the direction, the role, and the purpose of epidemiology. Many of the articles, often written by epidemiologists and other public health practitioners, have provocative titles such as “Questioning Epidemiology: Objectivity, Advocacy, and Socially Responsible Science” or “ Epidemiology and the Web of Causation: Has Anyone Seen the Spider?”

“These debates have been going on for decades,” said Jonathan Samet, M.D., chairman of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore. “Certainly, these questions are fundamental to all scientific disciplines. Epidemiology is not unique.”

A headline in a recent issue of Public Health Reports posed an especially harsh question: “Epidemiology: Second-Rate Science?”
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/9 ... 14/2606580

many epidemiologists concede that their studies are so plagued with biases, uncertainties, and methodological weaknesses that they may be inherently incapable of accurately disceming such weak associations.
[...]
As a solution, epidemiologists interviewed by Science could suggest only that the press become more skeptical of epidemiologic findings, that epidemiologists become more skeptical about their own findings-or both.
http://www.mwc.com.br/files/Taubes_-_Ep ... limits.pdf

The epidemiologists are usually well aware of the shortcomings of their studies and they were not the strongest advocates of HRT. Epidemiologists know that the evidence they produce may change over time and they know better than others that one should be careful when treating people without a disease. The HRT story is important and should be among the lessons we teach our students.
http://ieaweb.org/epidemiology-faces-it ... ver-again/

[Victoribus Spolia]

Unlike some conspiracy theorists and most Anti-vax people, I don't think that the government is out to get us by giving people free vaccinations, and that the CDC is just there to throw around shit science. Sorry. I am just not buying this argument.

Good thing no one is making that argument. I am specifically addressing the OP that is arguing for compulsion to vaccinate via an overriding or the parental right to abstain.

I am arguing based on each exemption that I believe is valid, and have supported my points with charts based on medical statistics and we have been interacting with that data ever since. There has only been one poster that has seriously attempted to rebut.

[Drlee]

Perhaps cutting your leg with a scythe and "rubbing some dirt in it" was bad advice. Aside from that, Tetanus is easily prevented, no vaccine necessary and early concerns can also be preemptively treated with antibiotics.

Bullshit. This single sentence shows just how ignorant you are on the subject.

First. It is true that tetanus is easily prevented. It is not true that "no vaccine is necessary". But what concerns me is your idiotic assertion that "early concerns can also be preemptively treated with antibiotics". This would be true if we treated every puncture wound (and others) with a powerful course of antibiotics. This would cause several problems in the general population.

First it would cause a number of patients to suffer side effects of antibiotic use. These can be considerable, from immune reactions to secondary infections. Cleaning the wound is important but it should be done by a practitioner not the average Joe. Alcohol and other disinfectants except some particularly powerful ones are ineffective against the spores.

Second it would be very dangerous to the general population to promote even more widespread use of antibiotics. Most practitioners now realize that we ought to reduce our use of antibiotics to time when they are necessary and that to use them prophylacticlly is rarely the correct course of action with a few notable exceptions.

There are studies that show that Tetanus can remain active in a wound despite a two week course of antibiotics. Then there is the issue of damage. The introduction of antibiotic therapy after infection may a) not work quickly enough to stop symptoms and b) once symptoms begin not act quickly enough to stop damage or death.

So we are to endanger the entire population and perhaps render ineffective our means to fight infection of a class of pathogen that is particularly dangerous because some dimwit reads anti-vax sites and does not understand what he/she is reading? To use antibiotics to prevent tetanus rather than the tried and true vaccine would be beyond stupid. It would be criminal.

Debate Swirls Around the Science of Epidemiology
Public health journals regularly include articles that take swipes at the methods, the direction, the role, and the purpose of epidemiology. Many of the articles, often written by epidemiologists and other public health practitioners, have provocative titles such as “Questioning Epidemiology: Objectivity, Advocacy, and Socially Responsible Science” or “ Epidemiology and the Web of Causation: Has Anyone Seen the Spider?”

“These debates have been going on for decades,” said Jonathan Samet, M.D., chairman of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore. “Certainly, these questions are fundamental to all scientific disciplines. Epidemiology is not unique.”

New flash son. Read the part that is underlined. We are particularly hard on our own. This is a science which relies on data lacking many of the easy controls that can be implemented in the laboratory. It is the very difficulty of epidemiological studies that makes them so important. Your attempt to discredit the discipline is idiotic.

I am arguing based on each exemption that I believe is valid, and have supported my points with charts based on medical statistics and we have been interacting with that data ever since. There has only been one poster that has seriously attempted to rebut.

On the contrary. I rebutted your data by simply pointing out what you have done. You have displayed monumental confirmation bias by cherry picking some studies in the attempt to discredit some of the most studied, validated and accepted data in the world. You need to prove your case. The virtually all experts in the field throughout the rest of the world (literally) have accepted the data you reject. Your position is akin to flat-earth.

[Rancid]

Anyone that doesn't vaccinate their kids should be thrown in prison for child abuse.

[Pants-of-dog]

When I vaccinate my kids, I am also protecting other children.

Including those kids of parents who do not understand the science and refuse to vaccinate their own.

You are welcome.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Anyone that doesn't vaccinate their kids should be thrown in prison for child abuse.

Anyone who holds this opinion should be castrated and be given a lobotomy.

See! I can say dumb inflammatory shit too. Amazing.

[Pants-of-dog]

Anyone who holds this opinion should be castrated and be given a lobotomy.

See! I can say dumb inflammatory shit too. Amazing.

By not vaccinating your children, you are increasing the risk of illness for those who cannot receive vaccinations because of medical conditions.

You are not only being stupid with your own children, but with the children of other people.

How would you feel if I risked the lives and health of your kids?

[Victoribus Spolia]

First. It is true that tetanus is easily prevented. It is not true that "no vaccine is necessary". But what concerns me is your idiotic assertion that "early concerns can also be preemptively treated with antibiotics". This would be true if we treated every puncture wound (and others) with a powerful course of antibiotics. This would cause several problems in the general population.

Boy is this fucking dumb.

You basically conceded my point that Tetanus is "easy-to -prevent" after calling it bullshit, and then you concede that it can be treated antibiotics while going on an unnecessary tangent about how the "Excessive use of antibiotics" is bad, which no one denies. Nor is anyone advocating that EVERYONE who gets a puncture wound go on a round of anti-biotics. that too would be unnecessary as not all puncture wounds are at high risk of developing Tetanus.

You basically advanced nothing that is even remotely convincing as to why one should be forced to forfeit their parental rights so as to forcibly have their children vaccinated for something that is (1) not contagious, (2) easily prevented (by your own admission), and (3) can be easily treated either preemptively if there were concern, or if caught early by antibiotics.

Your concessions have made the opposite case, that indeed, there is not sufficient reason to take away parental rights for the sake of the above.

When I vaccinate my kids, I am also protecting other children.

Including those kids of parents who do not understand the science and refuse to vaccinate their own.

You are welcome.

Yes your kids are getting vaccinated to prevent a danger that without the existence of the vaccine, would have ceased to have been a public threat almost ten years ago anyway.

I just don't know how to express my overwhelming sense of gratitude.

[Pants-of-dog]

People usually say thank you.

Please note that since the anti-vax movement started, we have seen recurrences of diseases that should no longer be a problem. Because of parents like you, other people’s kids are being harmed.

[Victoribus Spolia]

People usually say thank you.

Please note that since the anti-vax movement started, we have seen recurrences of diseases that should no longer be a problem. Because of parents like you, other people’s kids are being harmed.

Correlation does not imply causation, with the increase of people subscribing to liberalism in the west we have also seen more stagnating wages in the west, this does not mean that one causes the other.

You would need to substantiate that claim, in great detail to demonstrate a more intimate correlative relationship. I also know for a fact that many of these outbreaks occurred among vaccinated populations, not un-vaccinated ones.

Further, it is not my position that cases of things like Measles is reduced by the non-existence of vaccines, just that the mortality rate or serious harm rates from such diseases was not improved by the introduction of the vaccine, which is the whole argument. Measles mortalities would have reached the same negligible mortality rate that it is today had no vaccine ever been introduced.

This means, by definition, that the measles vaccine was unnecessary to bring about the decline and virtual end of measles mortalities. This is a FACT. Thus, if this vaccine is unnecessary to prevent measles deaths, I don't see why it is NECESSARY for my children to be forced to get it, ignoring all other exemptions, under the false premise that it saves lives. It doesn't. The claim is untrue. I should not have to give up my parental rights for peoples "feelings."

I fail to see why, given that is the case, I should be forced against my will to have my children vaccinated when I have the right to abstain.

Note: this is only the philosophical objection and only for measles.

Note: this does not include any discussion of side-effects associated with vaccines.

Note: this does not include the philosophical objections for other vaccines.

Note: this does not include any discussion of those diseases that likewise declined without any vaccine being produced.

Note: this does not include the religious exemption.

Note: this does not include the medical exemption.

Note: this does not include any discussion of the right to litigation against vaccine manufacturers in the event of damages in a court of law, which is currently denied to U.S. citizens.

ALL of these must be addressed.

I am open to being convinced for the need of vaccines. I really am, I am open to universal healthcare and all sorts of state programs for the collective good, as my philosophy is partially collectivist. I'm just not see any open and honest interaction with the data with the exception of Pros. Conscience. Everyone else, has been dismissive, vitriolic, and accusatory. Lots of bark and no bite, all talk with no substance.

Those on this forum have failed to even address a fraction of one of these objections I presented and only with measles, and in light of that failure, still insist that parental rights must be forcible taken away from parents.

Its cultish.

I have provided evidence, My wife has provided evidence. Everyone else, for the most part, has made assertions, insults, and fallacies.

If the Pro-vaxxers here can compose themselves and discuss the data, we might actually get somewhere.

[Victoribus Spolia]

NOTE

I will not be posting on PoFo Again Until 12/26/2017. Today is my last day, Will be spending time with family.

I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas.

[Drlee]

You basically conceded my point that Tetanus is "easy-to -prevent" after calling it bullshit,

Pay attention son. There will be a test.

Tetanus is easy to prevent because there is a very effective vaccine.

and then you concede that it can be treated antibiotics while going on an unnecessary tangent about how the "Excessive use of antibiotics" is bad, which no one denies.

The clostridium tetani can usually be treated with antibiotics but not always effectively and once symptoms start without much effect on outcomes. The patient is still gravely ill and often dies.

So what is this nonsense of yours about antibiotic resistance? You do not deny that it is bad but still advocate for its completely unnecessary use? That is idiotic. Are you just trolling or do you really not understand? Either way, you are wrong. Just wrong.

Nor is anyone advocating that EVERYONE who gets a puncture wound go on a round of anti-biotics. that too would be unnecessary as not all puncture wounds are at high risk of developing Tetanus.

Really? So how do you tell? Rusty nail? Any risk taking in this regard is preposterous to consider given the safety of the vaccine.

[B0ycey]

I also know for a fact that many of these outbreaks occurred among vaccinated populations, not un-vaccinated ones.

I have largely let your posts be unopposed by me as I believe that you as a parent have a right to object to your children having vaccinations as side effects from taking them are possible. As you have had this occur for your first child, then I accept your reasons for objecting to vaccinations today. But please do not publish complete bullshit. Do you want to read some facts?

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

You do increase the risk of infection from measles for your children by refusing vaccination. That is a fact.

[Pants-of-dog]

Correlation does not imply causation, with the increase of people subscribing to liberalism in the west we have also seen more stagnating wages in the west, this does not mean that one causes the other.

If we agree with your claim that things like clean water and use of antibiotics are responsible for less disease, then we have to assume that a lack of these cannot be the causes of the recurrences.

Something else must be causing it, and the lack of vaccinations is a sound assumption.

You would need to substantiate that claim, in great detail to demonstrate a more intimate correlative relationship. I also know for a fact that many of these outbreaks occurred among vaccinated populations, not un-vaccinated ones.

Yes, these cases occur among those few who cannot receive vaccinations for medical reasons, and they get it from kids of parents who do not vaccinate their kids.

Further, it is not my position that cases of things like Measles is reduced by the non-existence of vaccines, just that the mortality rate or serious harm rates from such diseases was not improved by the introduction of the vaccine, which is the whole argument. Measles mortalities would have reached the same negligible mortality rate that it is today had no vaccine ever been introduced.

You have not shown this, and the number of cases in measles ahs been shown to be affected by vaccination.

This means, by definition, that the measles vaccine was unnecessary to bring about the decline and virtual end of measles mortalities. This is a FACT. Thus, if this vaccine is unnecessary to prevent measles deaths, I don't see why it is NECESSARY for my children to be forced to get it, ignoring all other exemptions, under the false premise that it saves lives. It doesn't. The claim is untrue. I should not have to give up my parental rights for peoples "feelings."

It does save lives. Prosthetic Conscience showed that.

But if you need even more evidence:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3345439/dead ... ions-fall/

Romania has seen nearly 2,000 cases of measles since February 2016, World Health Organization data shows.

The country’s vaccination rate is 86 per cent, well below the 95 per cent recommended for “herd immunity” against infectious disease.

Romania’s measles outbreak has killed 17 children there, none of whom were vaccinated.

Romania’s vaccination rate has fallen sharply over the last decade, driven in part by a vocal anti-vaccination movement there. The country now has Europe’s highest measles infection rate, and its fifth-lowest vaccination rate.

Measles was most common in parts of Romania with the lowest vaccination rates, WHO said.

....

I fail to see why, given that is the case, I should be forced against my will to have my children vaccinated when I have the right to abstain.

Because you are not only risking the lives of your children, but the lives of the children of others.

What right do you have to risk the lives of children?

Note: this is only the philosophical objection and only for measles.

Note: this does not include any discussion of side-effects associated with vaccines.

Note: this does not include the philosophical objections for other vaccines.

Note: this does not include any discussion of those diseases that likewise declined without any vaccine being produced.

Note: this does not include the religious exemption.

Note: this does not include the medical exemption.

Note: this does not include any discussion of the right to litigation against vaccine manufacturers in the event of damages in a court of law, which is currently denied to U.S. citizens.

ALL of these must be addressed.

Note: no, we do not have to address things just because you tell us to.

I am open to being convinced for the need of vaccines. I really am, I am open to universal healthcare and all sorts of state programs for the collective good, as my philosophy is partially collectivist. I'm just not see any open and honest interaction with the data with the exception of Pros. Conscience. Everyone else, has been dismissive, vitriolic, and accusatory. Lots of bark and no bite, all talk with no substance.

We also see a lot of this vitriol coming from you. Perhaps you should look to the plank in your own eye.

Those on this forum have failed to even address a fraction of one of these objections I presented and only with measles, and in light of that failure, still insist that parental rights must be forcible taken away from parents.

Its cultish.

I have provided evidence, My wife has provided evidence. Everyone else, for the most part, has made assertions, insults, and fallacies.

If the Pro-vaxxers here can compose themselves and discuss the data, we might actually get somewhere.

You spend a lot of time discussing how people debate instead of addressing their claims.

You need to stop this when replying to me.

[Sivad]

NIH Director Dr Bernadine Healy speaks to Sharyl Attkisson about autism susceptibility

Healy's credentials couldn't be more "mainstream." After all, she once was a top government health official as head of the National Institutes of Health. She founded the first school of public health in Ohio, and then headed both the school of public health and the school of medicine at Ohio State University. She's an internist and cardiologist. And she's a member of the Institute of Medicine, the government advisory board that tried to put the vaccine-autism controversy to rest in 2004 by saying a link was not likely.

According to Healy, when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.

The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer.

Why? Healy says some in the government make the mistake of treating vaccines as an all-or-nothing proposition. The argument goes something like this: everybody gets vaccinated at the same time with the same vaccines or nobody will get vaccinated and long-gone deadly diseases will re-emerge. (When I asked about cases of brain damage resulting in autism that have been quietly compensated by the government in vaccine court over the years, one government official recently told me that "it's still better overall to get vaccinated than not to get vaccinated.")
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-open-q ... nd-autism/

Vaccines, Autism and Brain Damage: What's in a Name?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-a ... in-a-name/

The Search for Safer Vaccines
The former head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernardine Healy, has said such study would actually protect the integrity of the vaccine program, rather than threaten it (as she says many government officials fear). So far, though, no takers. Elias' case becomes quietly filed away in vaccine court archives with nearly 1,300 other vaccine brain injuries-none of them apparently being pooled for study. An undetermined number of them, like Elias', involving autism diagnoses.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-search ... -vaccines/

[Godstud]

Vaccines are not linked to Autism. Any suggestion of the kind is sheer pseudo-science, and bullshit, regardless of how many letters you have next to your name.

Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism.
One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used to prevent contamination of multidose vials of vaccines. Research shows that thimerosal does not cause ASD. In fact, a 2004 scientific review by the IOM concluded that “the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism.” Since 2003, there have been nine CDC-funded or conducted studies[PDF – 357 KB] that have found no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD, as well as no link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and ASD in children.

Between 1999 and 2001, thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for some flu vaccines. This was done as part of a broader national effort to reduce all types of mercury exposure in children before studies were conducted that determined that thimerosal was not harmful. It was done as a precaution. Currently, the only childhood vaccines that contain thimerosal are flu vaccines packaged in multidose vials. Thimerosal-free alternatives are also available for flu vaccine. For more information, see the Timeline for Thimerosal in Vaccines.

Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to ASD as well. However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

Next stupid claim...