I've been thinking about the MMR debate...
Knowing about the effects of mercury poisoning, I don't think the trace amounts of mercury are responsible, it's an impossible conclusion that obviously wasn't proven true.
It wouldn't matter to me anyway, I had measles at four weeks of age and wasn't given MMR until I was four years old. According to my Mother, by four I was already a stange child. In her opinion I always had been.
Here's another thought...
Before the measles vaccine became available most children got measles, it's thought that among normally healthy children, some children couldn't fight the infection at all and died, some couldn't fight it as well and ended up with complications like measles encephalitis, the rest just had measles and recovered.
The MMR vaccine has been in use since 1963 so around two to three generations of children have been vaccinated. Children who wouldn't have survived childhood measles are alive because they were vaccinated, children who would have been left with brain damage from measles encephalitis don't have it because they were vaccinated. Along with the children who would have survived anyway, they went on to have children of their own, when they wouldn't have done so if they hadn't have been vaccinated.
A type of natural selection took place when children had measles and those with the best immune response recovered. The others did not. With vaccination, that no longer happens.
45 years later, without that natural selection having taken place we have more people in the gene pool who would not survive measles infection.
What if those people who would have died from the measles, or who would have had the complication of measles encephalitis, react differently to the vaccine? Vaccination triggers an immune response, that's how it works.
Perhaps there is a correlation in some people... not with the triple vaccination, or with trace mercury, but with a flawed immune response.
_________________
~All that is gold does not glitter~