I'm interested in all kinds of subjects, all part of that heinleinian "specialization is for insects" mentality I have. It's part of what makes FR great, any subject that even mildly interests you will come up in the threads every couple of months.
Data does have merits, if nothing else it allows you to review how they got to their conclusions. Of course part of the problem is that you can't prove a negative so it's not actually possible to prove vaccines definitely don't cause autism, but so far none of the studies that are more than anecdotal conclusions hunting for data have been able to show any possible link. The plural of anecdote is not fact.
Got it the wrong way around, I refuse to believe any study that is designed to cherry pick data in an attempt to back up a predetermined conclusion. That's why I only pay attention to studies that give their background data, that allows me to reveiw what they used to draw their conclusions.
I sleep very soundly, and will sleep more soundly when the crowd trying to banish vaccines is finally kicked back to the 19th century where they belong so they'll no longer be trying to destroy our herd immunity and render us defenseless against diseases we should be able to consider conquered.
Well, your 100% logical mind seems to have again discerned my/our intentions, my/our statements to the contrary. Way to analyze the data!
Those of us actually interested in determining the cause and the solution can take comfort in the fact that it will benefit even the skeptics and their families.
Now we know where you've got those of us with a vested interest -- without yet admitting that you've specialized in protecting your own.
you can't prove a negative so it's not actually possible to prove vaccines definitely don't cause autism
This is redolent of the hypocrisy I mentioned, which is more likely to take place if you don't have a vested interest or are not being honest about what it is.
will sleep more soundly when the crowd trying to banish vaccines is finally kicked back to the 19th century where they belong so they'll no longer be trying to destroy our herd immunity and render us defenseless against diseases we should be able to consider conquered.
Look how much wasted verbiage went back and forth before you finally come out with your actual vested interest; your opposition already knew it was there and what it is, but it took an inordinate amount of effort to extract it from you.
And here is finally some valuable meat from you even if it's only about your reasoning for your approach to your version of research. This was of some value, even instructional:
Data does have merits, if nothing else it allows you to review how they got to their conclusions. Of course part of the problem is that you can't prove a negative so it's not actually possible to prove vaccines definitely don't cause autism, but so far none of the studies that are more than anecdotal conclusions hunting for data have been able to show any possible link. The plural of anecdote is not fact. Got it the wrong way around, I refuse to believe any study that is designed to cherry pick data in an attempt to back up a predetermined conclusion. That's why I only pay attention to studies that give their background data, that allows me to reveiw what they used to draw their conclusions.
In the future, with such valuable insights to share, please be up front with your vested interests and argue your case on the points -- which you have still failed to do. If you had done these four things: acknowledged your true bias; admitted what is undeniable (proving a negative); justified and promoted what you consider a valuable approach, with specifics; and, in addition, actually argued your case -- which possibility is very doubtful and may be the reason you never really attempted to do so -- we'll all be ahead.