It is becoming clear that you don't really understand how the science works.

Science isn't saying "never look at it again" it is saying "we looked, this doesn't appear to be it, lets look elsewhere."

how do you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt?

That's a problamatic phrasing, however for these purposes, you find what is causing it. That necessitates looking elsewhere.

Do some people have a genetic predisposition to cancer? Sure. Can smoking trigger cancer to occur (or at least be more severe) in such a person? Sure. Smoking certainly doesn't help, right?

Yes, and that shows up in statistical analysis of populations like the ones done for autism.

Okay, well what if some kids are born with a genetic predispostion to developing neurlogical issues? Isn't it at least theortically possible that something in these vaccines might trigger a problem that may manifest as autism or as something else entirely such as ADHD?

If it did, it'd show up in the statistical analyses that were done for autism and it didn't.

Your analogies are flawed.

I really can't figure out who you're arguing with. No-one is making the "points" that you're refuting.

in a very large population there will not be a statisical spike significant enough to point to vaccines as the cause. That's it. It doesn't say it can't happen, just that it doesn't look like it.

If vaccines were a primary cause, there'd be a statistical spike. Could it still happen in an incredibly rare case? Possibly, but it'd be less likely than being hit by lightning and therefore not a good place to continue researching.

And isn't this the exact same scientific game played by the tobacco scientists back in the 1950's?

No

And if you look at who is performing the autism-vaccine studies, they aren't backed by pharmeceutical companies or others who might have a vested interest. Furthermore, the studies have been done, as I said, in very different populations and all come to the same conclusions: there is no statistical link.

You can be skeptical, skeptical is good. However, when skeptical the best response is to educate yourself with the best science around. When you find a preponderance of evidence, your skepticism should wane or even vanish.

Both the scientists and a few "deniers" on this thread are insisting that in the absence of a uniform reaction to the vaccine then that is in itself "proof" that there is no reaction possible.

That's not what I'm seeing. What most of the scientific responses have said is that there is no statistical difference in occurance in vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations according to studies in disparate nations. This indicates that there is no evidence that vaccines are the cause and that they are likely not the cause.

All I (or anyone not embracing this ruling) is saying is that the "science" really isn't proving this stuff is perfectly harmless.

Science isn't saying it is "perfectly harmless", it is saying there seems to be no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

The theory seems to be that in order to prove the vaccine is harmful it must (no exceptions) instantly induce autism in 100 percent of the people who recieve the injection.

That is not the theory, you are mistaken.

Anything less than 100 percent autism rates in all human beings injected with the vaccine is accepted as "proof" that is doesn't induce autism (or any neurological issues) in anyone, ever.

I don't believe anyone is saying that.

Is it any wonder that some people are looking at that kind of "test" and are not particularly reassured?

It would not be, however, that is not the test, nor the focus of any scientific study.