On the contrary, she makes an extraordinarily weak case. In fact, looking at her recitation of study after study ostensibly linking autism and vaccine use, you see over and over, “results not replicable,” “too small” of a study,” “logical hurdles,” and on and on. Even Atkinson admits that these studies have not demonstrated a causal link between vaccines and autism. Worse, she repeatedly calls scientists who come to different conclusions than she has “propagandists” and “critics,” presupposing an unsupportable or unfair bias. She has utterly failed to demonstrate that any such bias exists in fact. Even Atkinson herself says: "To be clear: no study to date conclusively proves or disproves a causal link between vaccines and autism and—despite the misreporting—none has claimed to do so.” If all this is so, then where’s the beef?
>>Even Atkinson herself says: “To be clear: no study to date conclusively proves or disproves a causal link between vaccines and autism and—despite the misreporting—none has claimed to do so.” If all this is so, then where’s the beef?<<
I think you’re confusing her intent. It’s not to assert an autism/vaccine link, but to criticize the powers that be for denying the existence of evidence that suggests it. She’s criticizing both how the issue is handled politically and the reporting of it, not the science itself.