What kicked off the huge concern that has now grown world wide? One report released by Lancet taht based their theory off of a study of 12 children, 8 of which according to the report developed Autism related symptoms just days after the shot.
One problem. The "study" in no way agreed with the doctor's reports at the hospital. Let's look at it.
Child One - The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.
Child Two - Child Two, an eight-year-old boy from Peter-borough, Cambridgeshire, diagnosed with regressive autism, which, according to the Lancet paper, started “two weeks” after his jab. However, this child’s medical records, backed by numerous specialist assessments, said his problems began three to five months later. The difference between 14 days and a few months is significant, according to experts. Autism usually reveals itself in the second year of life, when the vaccine is routinely given. If there was no sudden onset after the MMR injection, as claimed for the “syndrome”, the condition could be ascribed to a conventional pattern.
Chid Three - Child Three, a six-year-old from Huyton, Merseyside. He was reported in the journal to be suffering from regressive autism and bowel disease: specifically “acute and chronic nonspecific colitis”. The boy’s hospital discharge summary, however, said there was nothing untoward in his biopsy.
Child Four - Had the same GP as Child 8, which raised suspicions of if the study was indeed "random."
Child Six and Seven - Child Six, aged 5, and Child Seven, aged 3, were said to have been diagnosed with regressive autism, with an onset of symptoms “one week” and “24 hours” after the jab respectively. But medical records show that neither boy was “previously normal”, as the Lancet article described all the children, and that both had already been hospitalised with brain problems before their MMR. Child Six received his vaccine at the age of 14 months, but had twice previously been admitted with fits. Child Seven was given his at the age of 20 months but, again, problems already showed.
Child Eight - Child Eight, aged 3, from Whitley Bay, Tyne & Wear. She was reported in the journal as having suffered a brain injury “two weeks” after MMR. Her medical records did not support this. Before she was admitted, she had been seen by local specialists, and her GP told the Royal Free of “significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR”.
Child Nine - Athology report said: “No abnormality detected”, while the Lancet paper said: “Nonspecific colitis”.
Child Ten - Athology report said: “No abnormality detected”, while the Lancet paper said: “Nonspecific colitis”.
Child Eleven - When biopsies were done later, no evidence of the measels virus (the suspected cause of the link) was discovered.
Child Twelve - Diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder, in which language is not lost, and which is not regressive, nothing like what One and Two were diagnosed with.
Child Five was not listed as having inconsistancies
On top of that, check this out with the "Bowel Irritation" that was reported;
WHEN the children first arrived at the Royal Free, in addition to autism, they were also reported with constipation, diarrhoea or other common bowel complaints. This was the reason given for them travelling between 60 and 5,000 miles to London to enter the care of Wakefield’s team.
A Royal Free consultant pathologist questioned a draft text of the paper. “I was somewhat concerned with the use of the word ‘colitis’,” Susan Davies, a co-author, told the ongoing GMC inquiry into the ethics of how the children were treated, in September 2007.
“I was concerned that what we had seen in these children was relatively minor.”
However, after her challenge, it was explained, Wakefield’s team met for a “research review” of the biopsies. It was not an unusual move for a group of specialists to reconsider the evidence upon which their research was relying. It was nevertheless striking that their conclusion was that 11 of the children’s bowels were in fact diseased when their colleagues had found no abnormalities in at least seven of the cases.