[KempyKolibri]

It sounds like you find speculation based on anecdotes more compelling than evidence from higher up the evidence hierarchy. That’s obviously your preference and you’re welcome to it.

When I’m discussing an issue and my interlocutor ends up having to bite a bullet like “I think MMR vaccines might contribute to autism based on speculation and the reports of people on the internet”, then I’m happy to take my hands off the wheel - it’s now clear their standards of evidence are very low.

Since you’ve openly admitting to it then I’ve achieved what I came to do:

1. See if I’m wrong in my view (it doesn’t seem like I am)

2. Ensure that anyone reading can see that in order to believe seed oils are harmful, one has to have a completely wild epistemic framework. You’ve admitted you think MMR vaccines might contribute to the development of autism based on a completely evidence-free view that such vaccines might be “the straw that breaks the camels back.”

I think this conversation has probably run its course - you believe things based on what I would consider anti-scientific reasoning, as you’re welcome to do. I don’t think wild speculation is a useful tool for making inferences about the world. We’re unlikely to bring each other round to our own views on this, I suspect.