And there are plenty more where that came from.
I chanced upon it. Iain Orr sent me a link to an article called Are We Born Racist:
There was a link at the bottom of the article about vaccinations, and as I had been commenting here I followed it. One link led to another, and I found that study.
So you can throw papers at me and call them “embarrassing to my position”, though I don’t really have a position about vaccination except that the scientific consensus is almost certainly a lot closer than any opinion of mine; I admit that I have no expertise about vaccination.
I do have a position that I think you know a lot less about vaccination than you seem to think. I don’t accept that you “have an interest in the vaccine debate”; I think that you’ve spent a lot of time reading anti-vax websites and exchanging e-mails with anti-vaxxers, some of them quite prominent I expect, and I think you’ve spent hardly any time at all reading scientific studies or examining the academic discussion of them.
The academic literature is where the real vaccine debate is, and I challenge you; you don’t have any interest in that debate at all, do you?
This is why I think we should have a discussion about how we should go about investigating things. Because if your answer to every objection is merely “Big Pharma, money, MSM” over and over again, and forever moving the goal posts so that we never investigate how a multitude of studies find no link between MMR and autism, then I say you’re not offering readers science but conspiracy theory, and thereby undermining your readers’ understanding of the scientific process itself.