Vaccines don't cause Autism. Maybe. But where's the evidence?

Vaccinologists routinely exclude the possibility that a vaccine causes injury if
(a) There is no logical reason to think that it could cause injury
and
(b) There is no reliable evidence.

The problem with this method is that the public, and the government sometimes ask for reassurances about illogical things i.e. the public asks for a different method of assessment. One that is not very efficient.

Unfortunately, while the scientific standard method might be reasonable, and perhaps the only method for developing vaccines that doesn't descend into paranoia, and an expensive waste of clinical trials.
This doesn't always mean that paranoia isn't justified.
The pharmaceutical companies also have a conflict of interest, as Russel Brand points out. It's not good for business to find out your product is harmful. It's also expensive to find out if some unpredictable implausible side effect exists.

Never the less, if the public asks for this test, and asks the government to pay for this test. The test should be done. But it hasn't. Mainly because the government wasn't willing to pay for the test. They were willing to ask if anyone could tell them some information. No one could, because the test had not been done.

The marketing response to having a lack of requested safety testing, borders on the pharmaceutical companies acting deceptively. Not because of the science, but the interpretation of the science provided by the marketers, and the lawyers.

This comes down to the classic argument. Someone says you are guilty. You have a few options for your answer: Yes, No and maybe. If the actual answer is probably not. The correct answer is "maybe", but there are persuasive reasons to oversimplify things, and say "No". But this carries a risk, that you were ignorantly lying.

This in my opinion is the dilemma that the scientists had. Unfortunately, combined with institutional tradition. Every one knows that No means, probably not ... But of course, that's not true for the public. And not a great concern to a pharmaceutical marketing manager trying to advance their career, or a politician in the US government trying to win votes, and usually win financial support from pharmaceutical companies.

Without the testing. A parent can not know whether the drug is safe or not. Some parents may decide that vaccination should occur when the children are older i.e. not at birth, but at say 6 months or 2 years.

This is still a tradeoff - vaccines do protect babies. Are you willing to risk your child dying of pertussis (whooping cough) for example? Or an unknown, but likely very small risk of autism?

It would be helpful if the CDC answered this question. But US politicians have not spent money on a trial that would answer this question. This is probably because vaccinologists assume (and they can be mistaken) that there is no risk.

Abridged video of an interview by Russel Brand.
https://rumble.com/c/russellbrand