I think I understand your intent, but intentionally or not, you are demonstrating the dangerously antiscientific trend in our society. You are essentially claiming that science has degraded. Nothing could be farther from the truth (by the way, Boolean logic is far clearer and sensible than Aristotelian and has rightly replaced it in scientific training). Besides the improvements in methodology, the Internet has allowed rapid exchanges of data around the world, which we can crunch with greater effectiveness than ever before.I am well aware that it is impossible to prove a negative, which is the point I think you want to make, but it can indeed be decisively disproven that there is a general relationship between autism and vaccination, and Wakefield’s specific hypothesis can indeed be conclusively disproven, as he proposed a specific mechanism. There may be a single individual with a unique metabolism who reacts poorly, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the idea that vaccines cause autism on a regular basis. Were this true, we would expect to see a significant correlation between vaccination history and autism; we would also expect that as elements varied (e.g., mercury compounds used as preservatives), we should see a variation in autism manifesting. Furthermore, we should by now be able to identify a cause-and-effect chain to explain WHY vaccines cause autism.None of these things are true, and the only person to produce data that said it were, had to fake it. No one has been able to replicate Wakefield’s results in other populations (another proof that vaccines in general cannot be at fault), and his explicit fakery has been discovered. And his “findings” were the only reason to suspect a linkage in the first place!Occam’s Razor applies here: there’s no evidence supporting this and never was, there’s considerable evidence disproving the hypothesis, and the only people supporting it are either ignorant of science or outright fraudsters.Yeah, it’s decisively disproven. The kindest thing you can say about Wakefield is that he proposed a hypothesis which was tested, and failed.