Can Vaccinations Cause Autism in Dogs?

Please can we place a forum wide ban on anyone posting about vaccinations causing autism, either in humans, animals, vegetables or objects, inanimate or otherwise.

NAS15840 said:

Please can we place a forum wide ban on anyone posting about vaccinations causing autism

I object most strongly to you trying to deny free speech.

The piece I posted about is from a respected website. The title of my post was taken directly from the Psychology Today blog post to avoid any accusations of sensationalism, scaremongering, etc.

People who read the piece will know it cannot be accused of supporting the view that vaccinations cause autism and that it looks at the issue from a scientific point of view.

There have been several "vaccination" threads over the years, usually resulting around people posting utter rubbish and then people being banned for refuting them (evidence wasn't welcome), so I tend to think that claims of vaccination "causing" autism on here are often an attempt at trolling (although I'm happy to accept that yours isn't).

I wouldn't go as far as to say Psychology Today is respected, it's full of a lot of rubbish as well as some good articles, very few of them would stand up to peer review and are little more than opinion pieces. 

I also don't think that the article looks at it from a scientific point of view, it's far too short for that, presents no evidence and doesn't attempt to apply scientific principal.

We will have to agree to disagree about Psychology Today, however, it does not attempt to be a peer-reviewed journal: it is intended for a public audience.

Apologies for not being clear about my statement 'it looks at the issue from a scientific point of view.' The point I was trying to get across was that the article referred to various research (which the reader could, if wanted, look into) rather than quoting personal opinions. I acknowledge that the article would have been better had it referenced the research.

We will have to agree to disagree about Psychology Today, however, it does not attempt to be a peer-reviewed journal: it is intended for a public audience.

Apologies for not being clear about my statement 'it looks at the issue from a scientific point of view.' The point I was trying to get across was that the article referred to various research (which the reader could, if wanted, look into) rather than quoting personal opinions. I acknowledge that the article would have been better had it referenced the research.