“but saying that vaccines don’t cause autism, case closed, is close minded “The science is settled” thinking.”
That’s completely backwards. In science, you don’t assert something until AFTER you have experimental confirmation. Otherwise, you are doing something other than science.
All you’ve got is a hypothesis, and one that is easily ruled out as not feasible, because predictions based on that hypothesis fail to match the observed data. A failed hypothesis, in science, is relegated to the dustbin, not doggedly propped up with flawed arguments. It is the people who refuse to abandon a failed hypothesis who are in fact doing exactly what the “climate change” crowd is doing.
[ All you’ve got is a hypothesis, and one that is easily ruled out as not feasible, because predictions based on that hypothesis fail to match the observed data. A failed hypothesis, in science, is relegated to the dustbin, not doggedly propped up with flawed arguments. It is the people who refuse to abandon a failed hypothesis who are in fact doing exactly what the “climate change” crowd is doing. ]
Then what is wrong with a parent playing is safe and spacing out the vaccines and doing them one at a time?
Shouldn’t it be the parent’s choice anyways?