I don't have a child with autism; I don't even have children. So I have no personal stake in this discussion. But, given my background in science, I do find it weird that judges are the ones who "decided" that vaccines don't "cause" autism. Are these "special masters" scientists? Not clear from the article. Quite frankly, even though I know that many religious blocks have an attitude toward science, I also find that many lay people who don't have a background in science are extremely naive in their assessments of what science can and cannot "prove" and are willing to take conclusions at face value when all kinds of vested interests abound (not just the money made by, say, vaccine-makers, but scientists who have a reputation staked on a particular conclusion, for example). They really don't even understand the science and are unable to evaluate the methods used in the experiments and the statistics used in the interpretation. Kristina141 is correct, IMO; "Isn't that what science is supposed to be all about? Constantly questioning and testing hypotheses for new answers?" Yes, it is.

I'm no expert, certainly, but it seems to me that it is entirely possible that there is more than one cause of autism. Some children may be born with the disease. But what if one-tenth of one percent of the population is genetically susceptible to reacting to the current recommended vaccination schedule in the form of autism? Does that low percentage mean that this didn't cause the autism? Not necessarily. I feel that using the premature science card is often as disingenuous as the "emotion" card. And BTW, just because someone might feel emotional about something doesn't automatically invalidate their opinion. There are just as many people who don't "want" vaccinations to be responsible for autism as those who feel they are. Possibly more. To tell you the truth, I found the tone and language of this article to be very emotional.

I think it's bizarre to expect a court ruling to "decide" this issue, quite frankly. That is not science. It's very unfortunate that there's so much money swirling all around this issue on all sides because I think that will just make it harder to figure out what is really going on. I'm not saying that vaccinations are the cause of autism, but I personally am not willing to discount all the anecdotal evidence from parents intimately involved in their children's daily lives and well-being. And incidentally, once anecdotal evidence becomes published, guess what it becomes? A case history.

Thank you for the clarification and excellent post.

And I'd like to add this: I've lived in California long enough now to see the shift from mom-and-pop growers to the cartels moving in after the "War on Drugs" got cranked up. It's unbelievably destructive what that stupid "war" has done. There are places in national parks, recreation areas, and forests that are dangerous to hike or bike in because of these giant illegal patches that are guarded and booby-trapped. In fact, just last summer, three Mexican nationals who were guarding a garden were very badly burned during the wildfires here, which is terrible! No one should have to risk their life over this! It's insane. It's not just a money issue, it's a safety issue. Not only that, meth use and meth labs are an awful, awful scourge in our rural communities (and horribly ecologically "dirty"), but because it's so much easier to go after pot farms, that's what law enforcement focuses on. They get all kinds of press and accolades for fighting the War on Drugs. Meanwhile, a psychiatrist friend of ours has said that he believes that at least a third of the cases of psychosis he treats are meth-induced. If we could legalize marijuana, more resources could go into dealing with the meth problem, which is serious. Personally, I think all drugs should be legalized so that ones that are truly harmful would be easier to treat. But IMHO, legalizing marijuana is a no-brainer, for all of the reasons discussed.