>>Even Atkinson herself says: “To be clear: no study to date conclusively proves or disproves a causal link between vaccines and autism and—despite the misreporting—none has claimed to do so.” If all this is so, then where’s the beef?<<
I think you’re confusing her intent. It’s not to assert an autism/vaccine link, but to criticize the powers that be for denying the existence of evidence that suggests it. She’s criticizing both how the issue is handled politically and the reporting of it, not the science itself.
If that is her purpose and intent she lends no credibility to herself by contemptuously referring to researchers whose results don’t support her view as “critics” and “propagandists”. Makes her look very much like propagandist herself. That was precisely my conclusion in dismissing the article as unworthy of serious consideration. Frankly, I was unable to conclude - as you have - that her purpose was anything but to further the campaign of the anti-vac crowd.