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.
What of my own am I protecting?
There's no hypocricy in that, you can't prove a negative. Doesn't matter what the negative is, negatives can't be proven, it's one of the most basic concepts of logic. I can't prove I'm not an alien, you can't prove you're not approaching this emotionally, nobody can prove there is no possible even slight link between autism and vaccines. But what we can establish is that no link has been proven so far and that there've been enough studies unable to establish a link that at this juncture it would be highly unlikely for there to be a link.
I have no more vested interest than any other person that thinks the world is a better place without rampant polio and small pox and whooping cough running around thanks to vaccination.
I still don't know what "vested interest" you're accusing me of. I don't work for any pharm or the AMA or anybody else making money on vaccines, to the best of my knowledge (who can really say where your 401k money is) I'm have no investments in any of these companies. I have no vested interest, other than not wanting to see polio make a comeback in the 21st century.
On your 4 "points":
I have no bias
Negatives cannot be proven, it's one of the basic concepts of logic handed down from Aristotle
I justified and promoted what I consider a valuable approach (peer reviewed studies with open data) from the start
And I've been arguing my case as much as I can when dealing with a person that is obsessed with making the discussion about the discussors rather than the actual topic