[John Valentine]

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.

If that is her purpose and intent she lends no credibility to herself by contemptuously referring to researchers whose results don’t 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.

[Norseman]

>>...by contemptuously referring to researchers whose results don’t 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.