>>...by contemptuously referring to researchers whose results don’t support her view as “critics” and “propagandists”<<
I’m not going to take the time to read her article again. If she indeed referred to researchers as critics and propagandists, then you have a point. But if she was instead referring to those who propagate the results of the researchers, i.e., by emphasizing the results of one batch of researchers and ignoring equally responsible research of another batch of researchers, then perhaps you should concede my point.
My recollection, and the impression I got when reading her, is that she was questioning the dissemination of the results and not the researchers’ work. I could be wrong.
Atkinson was careful to point out that she did not consider the matter settled conclusively (by the research) one way or the other. But her writing wasn’t as even handed as that concession would indicate it should have been.
Incidentally, my position is that immunization has proven to be such a worldwide good that it is difficult for me to imagine that we humans would abandon it even if it can be conclusively shown that some aspect of immunization causes what is now being called autism. I say it this way because I am convinced that the “epidemic” of autism that has people concerned is an epidemic of definition. I do not think it represents a real phenomenon.
If there is an argument to be made that immunizations could be made safer by making changes in the way we administer vaccination programs, or by developing better preservatives or adjuvants, I think there would be widespread approval of that. I can tell you for certain that pharma is always looking at ways to improve the safety and efficacy of their products and that includes vaccines.