At the risk of hemoraging more karma, let me make the following observations.<p>1) The MMR study consists of 288 children, 192 of which were hand-picked to match 96 autistic children.  It strikes me that for a condition that is diagnosed in 1 out of 120  children, a population of 300 children is a bit sparse.  Is that blasphemy?<p>2) The MMR study (which the other high karma poster is also quoting, it's the same study) is, after all, an MMR study.  That means that of the 30 or so shots <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2010/10_0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2...</a> that a child is forced to undergo in the US by age 6, the Measles-Mumps-Rubella shot has been shown apparently (with a sample size of 288 kids) not to correlate with autism.  I'm not sure why MMR was singled out, but for many of us, it's not any one vaccine that's the issue, nor is it thimerosal (although I'm glad it's out of there), it's the sheer number of them and how fast they are imposed on young bodies.  Many more of them, I may add, than when you were a kid.<p>I feel that you are not going to be swayed from your position that all is well in vaccination land.  I wonder if you have children.  When you have a new son (boys are diagnosed at a rate of 1 in 70) we'll see if you aren't more willing to be critical of one or two studies that are quoted so often it seems like there are 50.<p>My original point still stands.  Fund a study of non-vaccinated children.  They exist.  I have two of them.  Compare their autism rate against the general population.  Use a sample size that is actually meaningful, and you'll shut up Jenny McCarthy, and you'll let me sleep easier as well.