No. What I'm trying to do is introduce you to the way scientists think. When you see something, you can't automatically accept the first explanation that pops into your head about it. A true scientist tries to think of alternate explanations, and asks themselves a series of "what-if" questions. A true scientist does not become emotionally attached to an idea. Your problem is that you have become emotionally attached to the idea that vaccines cause autism, and you really have seen more autistic kids, so it must be true.
But when you get away from the popular news media, and look instead at the scientific literature, there is no such link, and there is no real evidence that anything other than a broadening of the diagnostic category is responsible for the supposed increase in autism.
Did you even read the abstract and article I linked? They both say pretty much what I've tried to say.
What I'm trying to tell you is that your explanation of the scientific method is shallow, and is covering what seems to be an attachment to proving a negative concerning autism rates. There's a great book by Karl Stern on Descartes and dualism, which touches a great deal on science, scientism, common sense, and how we know reality, called The Flight from Woman. It's not about women, but rather about everything. In particular, it's about the Manichean distortion of philosophy and science since Descartes. It's an excellent point of reference.
Thanks and best regards.