[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".

[xtiansimon]

"...but these people haven't actually checked "the facts"."

It sounds like a hard line, but science is not like that. I don't think science leads to smugness. Science helps us make decisions, now. Ideology, on the otherhand, is quick to judgment, undermines, subverts, misleads, and is a general problem across all of society.

I knew a biologist who, believed their scientific findings, loved animals and nature, but found humans lacking. That general disdain was eveident in scarcastic jokes, and subversive attitudes towards society. They had to delete their Facebook page for all the crap they would say, which people would jump on. That's ideology, a secret belief in the way the world works.