Spud, I respect your views in many areas,, but I just don't get your vehement denial of the possibility that vaccines are responsible for a great many cases of autism. You seem to put all of your marbles in the basket of peer reviewed "scientific" studies. I have participated in the design, research, interpretation, and conclusion of these kinds of studies. Yes, they have their place, but they are no less fallible than case studies, and other observations. You really need to look at evidence from many different sources. There is a theory in quantum mechanics that illustrates what happens when reality is observed. Here's part of an article to explain it:

February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

See Also:
Matter & Energy
Quantum Physics
Physics
Spintronics
Quantum Computing
Graphene
Inorganic Chemistry
Reference
Mechanics
List of phases of matter
Wave-particle duality
Spin (physics)
In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.

The research team headed by Prof. Mordehai Heiblum, included Ph.D. student Eyal Buks, Dr. Ralph Schuster, Dr. Diana Mahalu and Dr. Vladimir Umansky. The scientists, members of the Condensed Matter Physics Department, work at the Institute's Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Center for Submicron Research.

When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.

Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased....http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

The same thing happens when a study is designed, whether it is double blind, or not. The expectations and subtle unconscious manipulations of the results to match the expectations of the designers and participants, negate an infallible conclusion. Yes, they should be considered, but not as your only source.

The first book on vaccination we read in chiro school was called "A Shot In The Dark". It was compelling. But, even more so to me was a classmate and his tragic personal experience with vaccines. His baby boy, born and developing perfectly went in for his shots, left, shortly thereafter began crying and screaming for hours and hours, inconsoleably, and is now permanently and profoundly autistic. It is the same story you hear over and over. It is pretty hard to just deny that kind of evidence just because it wasn't part of a study. Just take into consideration all sorts of observations before you draw a conclusion.

I know you are pretty "dug in" to your decision in this matter and unlikely to reverse it based on anything I say, but maybe it will give you some "food for thought". After all of the various observations I've made, my personal conclusion is that vaccines are indeed the cause of many cases of autism.