I see that you aren’t even attempting to defend your first post.

You have pointed out not problems with her positions, you have pointed out your problems with her statements. Very different things. You have not proven, or come close to proving, your statements.

Her statements, on the other hand, are more than theoretical. They are backed by citations. She was sparse in her citations, as there are many (many) more that support what she states.

But if I point out problems with her statements concerning vaccines, I am off target concerning ASD, so move along.

I agree with Dr. Brown when she said “So even though PREVALANCE studies seem to show autism is increasing, the incidence proof is lacking”. The incidence may be decreasing, flat or increasing. That information is theoretical and not empirical. How is presenting theoretical information clear or smart to new or future parents who may not even know what ASD is?

The rest of my critique of this document still stands and points to the inherent problems of incidence studies.

it’s not a peer-reviewed paper. The entire point is to demonstrate the value of vaccines. If you want to argue based on what the paper is not, you are invited to find someplace that thinks it is a peer-reviewed paper.

So there is no empirical proof concerning the incidence of ASD. So the argument sited above, and the following paragraph in the paper is worthless.

She did not say that there is no empirical proof of the incidence of ASD. There most certainly is. What is lacking is emipircal data that the incidence is increasing. Given your stance, I find it very unlikely that you don’t know about the incidence studies. That makes me question the rest of your discussion.

If you really don’t know about incidence studies, you can find a good one by Dr. Fombonne’s group. There are others which are not difficult to find–likely cited by Fombonne.

“Did the mercury in vaccines cause autism?
“Mercury preservative (thimerosal) was removed from vaccines commonly
given to infants and young children in the U.S. in 2001, but the
rates of children being diagnosed with autism are still skyrocketing.
A survey of autism rates in California in 2008 confirms that mercury
is out and autism rates are still going up.”

This is a prevalence study.

However, Dr. Brown had stated previously in the paper:

“So even though PREVALANCE studies seem to show autism is increasing, the incidence proof is
lacking”

So there is no empirical proof concerning the incidence of ASD. So the argument sited above, and the following paragraph in the paper is worthless.

Back to the paper:

“Mercury preservatives were removed from vaccines in Denmark in
1992. Canada and the European Union have followed suit. Their autism
diagnosis rates are still going up, too.”

Proof of diagnostic changes, pointless for the argument concerning causation.

Back to the paper:

“Displacing one diagnosis for another. In previous generations,
many children were diagnosed with mental retardation, schizophrenia,
or some other psychiatric disorder. Today, many of these same
kids are diagnosed with severe autism.”

Proving that the diagnosis criteria for the listed disorders is a pseudoscience and not empirically based.

“Over or misdiagnosis? There is so much awareness now of Autism Spectrum Disorders, that perhaps clinicians are overdiagnosing it.”

Futher proof of the pseudoscience status of the diagnosis criteria.

When people assert that vaccines don’t even work, it makes this into an anti-vaccine discussion rather than an autism discussion.

Both of these statements are factually incorrect. Either this doctor is lying or inept.