A primer on logical fallacies

@Metal-Brain said
No. You have not explained why the unvaccinated Amish do not get autism.
You have made countless assertions without posting a single study to prove it.

You either have no real evidence or you are a liar. That is why you are evading an honest debate about it. Why don't you just admit the study you read has recently been convicted of fraud? Of course you don't want to talk about it anymore.

There are clear, statistical differences in the rates of lung cancer between smokers vs. non-smokers.

There are clear, statistical differences in the rates of colon cancer in red meat eaters vs. non-red meat eaters.

There are clear, statistical differences in the rate of liver cirrhosis in alcoholics vs. non drinkers.

But there IS NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE at all in the rate of autism in vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.

Get it together.

@wildgrass said
Blaming the trigger as the cause while ignoring the operative mechanism is a logical fallacy. Even if you could show that autism is "triggered" by vaccination (a dubious claim) it isn't logically possible that a vaccine can cause the disorder out of nothing

This seems similar to the highly dubious argument that link psychedelic drugs to schizophrenia. If you are reading ...[text shortened]... to make those conclusions. Because a "trigger" could really be anything. What does the evidence say?

For all you know all autism is caused by triggers. And now you have to explain what an "operative mechanism" is. Can you do that?

You still have not answered the question you have been evading.
Is there a difference between "caused by a vaccine" and "resulted from the vaccine"?

You don't even know what a trigger is. Guns have triggers, not people. And if a certain medical condition can "trigger" autism in children why are they pulling the trigger and vaccinating them? Gun triggers don't kill people, people do.

Be sure to answer my first question first. You have evaded that question for far too long. Not that you want to understand the explanations you are repeating like a parrot. You never scrutinize any of them yourself. They only seem to make sense at first because you want them to.

The Vaccine court gave taxpayer money to the family of Hannah Poling because the vaccine caused her autism. If it didn't the vaccine court is guilty of embezzlement. Do you think they should go to prison for stealing taxpayer money for a vaccine that did not cause autism?

You want to have it both ways. You want to deny the vaccine caused Hannah Poling's autism and defend the vaccine court for stealing taxpayer money to care for a special needs child that was not caused by autism. How do you maintain that cognitive dissonance? Do you pretend the contradiction does not exist?

@wildgrass said
There are clear, statistical differences in the rates of lung cancer between smokers vs. non-smokers.

There are clear, statistical differences in the rates of colon cancer in red meat eaters vs. non-red meat eaters.

There are clear, statistical differences in the rate of liver cirrhosis in alcoholics vs. non drinkers.

But there IS NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE at all in the rate of autism in vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.

Get it together.

"But there IS NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE at all in the rate of autism in vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated."

You keep claiming that but you never prove it. WTF is your source of information?