i can understand your theory. If you expect one group to shade things one way, you could expect an opposing group to shade things the other.
However, you missed what i said.
The anti-vaxxers are not paying for someone to do a study, they are paying for someone to find out what is in the vaccine.
And, to give an example, if you were testing treated water, you would expect to find traces of toilet paper.
However, if you were testing well water, and you found toilet paper in it, what are your conclusions?
That is the kind of things they are finding in vaccines.
Now, would you take a shot that said, "Warning, this substance is known to cause cancer"?
Such ingredients shouldn't be used in a shot.
And peer-reviewed is just a group of people that all agree with each other. To get into the group you have to agree with the group.
And since all this group gets paid by Big-pharma, you can't ask for peer review of anything that opposes big pharma.
Or, in other words, what we are now finding is, it is no longer this vaccine causes autism.
It is...