Teresa Conrick has posted a bunch of arse trying to demonstrate that because new things are discovered in science all the time, that shows that her pet hypothesis, that vaccines cause autism, is bound to be correct. She goes on to list and misrepresent a few unrelated studies that no more support her idea than simply posting a big picture of a baboon's arse would. However, I'm wondering why she's bothering, when she clearly has even more earth-shattering information to impart!
There is no escaping the ever increasing research coming out weekly, showing solid science connections behind environmental and vaccine injury causing autism.
Is there?? I've not bloody well seen it. So why on earth isn't Age of Autism publicising this research instead of "six degrees" style attacks on Paul Offit and pleas from Kent Heckenlively for readers to pray for an unnamed scientist at an unnamed institution who is being falsely accused of an undisclosed crime, by undisclosed science bullies? (That one was fairly quickly removed from the site - maybe Heckenlively's stepping too far off Planet Reality even for AoA, which is saying something)
Come on Teresa, show us the weekly solid science - and by that I don't mean the vague abstracts of unrelated gubbins that usually passes for science at AoA, I mean real science, actually studying a link between vaccines and autism, by reputable researchers (so no mates of Wakefield, Krigsman or the Geiers), and you can advance your case.
However, I suspect your weekly science has about as much grounding in reality as the stories in the fortnightly "In The Night Garden" magazine* - hence your vague hand waving and flannelling.
* - Although I've seen some of them on the telly, so they must be true. One up on Conrick's made up shite.