[bonzaidrinkingb]

You can not scientifically state there is no connection between vaccines and autism. That is just a reminder of the limits of empirical science and the impossibility of proving a negative. It is important to be nuanced here and respect the difference: that no widely accepted evidence has been found, is something I also agree with.

> even if there were, ... be morally reprehensible and massively harmful to stir up fear about it.

Exactly. This is why "no evidence has been found" is a weak substitute. An unbiased look at gathering evidence could mean the end of your carreer and reputation. It is not science, but closer to politics, sociology, and PR for public health. Also why Wakefield was attacked so hard: the science itself was not so bad or harmful, but the interpretation and fears of the general public were.

If there are answers that can not be questioned, then science and scientific integrity is in danger. Attacking research for "amplifying bullshit" or "stoking fears", not by merit, that is immoral. Not giving a voice to desperate parents who come to you to share their story that no medical authority will accept, that is immoral.

As for parroting: try to find unbiased interpretations or objective word-for-word claims by RFK on vaccine harms. Incredibly hard. Consider the morality of supressing or strawmanning anecdotes or research.