If that is her purpose and intent she lends no credibility to herself by contemptuously referring to researchers whose results dont support her view as critics and propagandists. Makes her look very much like propagandist herself. That was precisely my conclusion in dismissing the article as unworthy of serious consideration. Frankly, I was unable to conclude - as you have - that her purpose was anything but to further the campaign of the anti-vac crowd.
>>...by contemptuously referring to researchers whose results dont support her view as critics and propagandists<<
I’m not going to take the time to read her article again. If she indeed referred to researchers as critics and propagandists, then you have a point. But if she was instead referring to those who propagate the results of the researchers, i.e., by emphasizing the results of one batch of researchers and ignoring equally responsible research of another batch of researchers, then perhaps you should concede my point.
My recollection, and the impression I got when reading her, is that she was questioning the dissemination of the results and not the researchers’ work. I could be wrong.