[JTbane]

>Experts wielding their jargon and credentials as devices to shut up non-experts, even if non-experts have credible critiques and ideas to offer

I don't know if I can agree with this: a layperson might make some ridiculous claim about vaccines causing autism, and a medical doctor absolutely has the right to dismiss them based on credentials.

[beepp]

At this point, there is no _credible_ evidence I'm aware of that suggests vaccines cause autism. Hence, a doctor dismissing those claims is reasonable and expected. There is no claim here that non-experts necessarily have the same credibility as experts.

My statement was more in reference to e.g. the use by some experts of esoteric and potentially inaccurate models to silence critique by overwhelming non-experts with jargon. "I spent years developing this model, what do you know?"

[mistermann]

> At this point, there is no _credible_ evidence I'm aware of that suggests vaccines cause autism.

This is true, but is the data upon which the statistics "proving" no causative relationship at all between vaccines and autism completely comprehensive and absolutely correct? I wonder how many people who consider themselves educated on the matter of vaccines have bothered to actually do any significant reading on the subject.

> Hence, a doctor dismissing those claims is reasonable and expected.

Reasonable and expected sure, but objectively correct is another thing.

Similarly, asserting that vaccines do cause autism is a very different thing than simply asking for evidence that they do not, ever, and wanting to know specific details on the source/methodology behind the evidence.

Related, hat tip to lp2019 in the thread for part 1 of this essay: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/introduction-the-fairway

[beepp]

I do not consider myself educated on the matter of vaccines and am ill-equipped to defend any position on either side :) To your point, proving a negative such as "vaccines definitively do NOT cause autism, ever" with 100% certainty is nontrivial. I simply haven't seen any compelling evidence that they are causally linked to autism, which is usually the claim.

[mistermann]

> I simply haven't seen any compelling evidence that they are causally linked to autism, which is usually the claim.

Nor have I, I am referring more so to the general public census (and accompanying confidence level), and a very careful and critical reading of the "facts" as presented by the medical "community".

Just as a fun mental experiment, imagine a purely hypothetical scenario where vaccination reaction data is not comprehensively collected, where the methodology behind the statistical reporting involves an element of personal judgement (and therefore to some degree inconsistent and subject to personal error), and the reporting guidelines are written in a way that there is a relatively high bar before an adverse reaction incident should be reported. In this hypothetical scenario, might it be possible that the statistics necessary to suggest a possible causative relationship literally do not exist?

Now, go do some reading on the details of the actual reality of the data and the methodology behind its compilation. Then compare that to what is written about it in literature, or how it is discussed.

[xtiansimon]

Mistermann: “...asserting that vaccines do cause autism is a very different thing than simply asking for evidence that they do not, ever...”

Logically, this doesn’t seem true—100% causality or 100% non-causality. The very premise doesn’t seem “scientific”. Are you serious about this claim or laying the groundwork for a different punchline?

I don’t know—maybe you should write an article outlining your response? I’ll read it ;)

[mistermann]

> Logically, this doesn’t seem true—100% causality or 100% non-causality.

Even sometimes satisfies "do cause autism". "do not, ever" (the popular story), means zero.

We're told vaccines do not cause autism is a fact. Does comprehensive "scientific" data exist to back this up, as we're told?

The punchline I guess is that everyone has a smug, rolling of the eyes demeanor towards anyone who questions the narrative, but these people haven't actually checked "the facts".