Ani vaxxers off welfare, page-269

Before any of the MMRDTPHepPolio vaccines existed, there was no diagnosis of autism. Since their introduction, autism has increased. Autism was first diagnosed in the US in the 1940's, a few years after the D, T and P vaccines started to be given in significant numbers. Subsequently autism was diagnosed in Japan in 1945 after the US started vaccinating the population immediately after the war. In the UK P vaccine usage increased steadily during the late 1950s, and the NSACB was founded in 1962. And so on. In these early stages the number of shots was small:

"In the early 1950s, there were four vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and smallpox. Because three of these vaccines were combined into a single shot (DTP), children received five shots by the time they were 2 years old and not more than one shot at a single visit.
By the mid-1980s, there were seven vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and polio. Because six of these vaccines were combined into two shots (DTP and MMR), and one, the polio vaccine, was given by mouth, children still received five shots by the time they were 2 years old and not more than one shot at a single visit.

Since the mid-1980s, many vaccines have been added to the schedule. Now, children could receive as many as 24 shots by 2 years of age and five shots in a single visit. The result is that the vaccine schedule has become much more complicated than it once was, and children are receiving far more shots than before

Since the mid-1980s, many vaccines have been added to the schedule. Now, children could receive as many as 24 shots by 2 years of age and five shots in a single visit. The result is that the vaccine schedule has become much more complicated than it once was, and children are receiving far more shots than before"

http://vec.chop.edu/service/vaccine...ine-schedule/history-of-vaccine-schedule.html

Before anyone disses the above about correlation and causation, bear in mind the difficulty Doll and Hill had in getting their correlation research accepted:

"Evidence had been gathering for more than a decade beforehand. In 1949, Richard Doll, a researcher working for the Medical Research Council, and Bradford Hill, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene, began looking at lung cancer patients in London hospitals. The patients were asked about family history, diet and previous diseases. In 649 cases of lung cancer, two were non-smokers. Doll immediately gave up his own five cigarettes a day habit.

Doll and Hill extended their research to Cambridge, Bristol and Leeds and, after speaking to some 5,000 people, found the same results.

In 1951, the researchers wrote to 59,600 doctors and asked about their smoking habits. They kept a watch on the doctors' health and published the results in 1954 in a paper now deemed so important that the British Medical Journal reprinted the first page last June, 50 years after the original report.

Doll and Hill followed up their work and, by 1956, the link was incontrovertible: more than 200 heavy smokers had died in a four-year period while the incidence among non-smokers was negligible.

After the Royal College's recommendations in 1962 - restriction of advertising; higher taxation; restrictions on sales to children and on smoking in public places; information on tar and nicotine content - cigarette sales fell for the first time in a decade."

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jun/02/thisweekssciencequestions.cancer

And note, that this was purely statistical. There is still no hard scientific evidence as to what causes lung cancer, in the sense that the chemical/biological mechanisms are not fully understood - and yet nobody would question now that smoking causes lung cancer. So why do the vaccine proponents demand such a high level of proof that vaccines cause autism? It simply isn't available, for similar reasons that we don't have it for smoking and lung cancer.