There still will be arguments

A few months ago, Donald Trump was on the Hannity Show and the subject of vaccinations came up and Mr. Trump said that although he would prefer the vaccinations be given at an older age, he seemed to indicate that there might yet be a connection to autism. Hannity looked shocked and asked Mr. Trump if he had not been following the proven medical reports and studies that did not show a link between the MMR Vaccine and autism. Mr. Trump said he knew two children who had gotten the injections and developed autism. For a gentleman of such amazing financial smarts, it was shocking to see him resort to anecdotal conclusions meaning because he knew two cases that matched up to his assumption, it must be true. This latest study should put┬áto rest the worries of parents that there is a link between vaccines and autism . . . but it probably won’t as so many will stand by their anecdotal conclusions regardless of medical facts and years of medical studies.

A sad note to the article was the mention of all the money that went to again prove the lack of a link, money that could have gone to more serious problems with children.

Anecdotal evidence – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia// // //

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. In cases where small numbers of anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, within the scope of scientific method for claims regarding particular instances. Anecdotal evidence is no more than a type description (i.e., short narrative), and is often confused in discussions with its weight, or other considerations, as to the purpose(s) for which it is used. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.[3][4][5]

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the “person who” fallacy (“I know a person who…”; “I know of a case where…” etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a “typical” experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is “typical” requires statistical evidence