Well, yes, it's "Autism, autism, autism." That's why people are generally hesitant to vaccinate, and that's what the majority of the articles would be about.
I confess that I had not noticed the "Vaccines Did Not Save Us - 2 Centuries of Statistics" article, and when you mentioned it, it did give me pause. However, I went back, found it, and read it. Did you? It sounded very "sciency", with lots of graphs and data. Is it correct in it's conclusions? Should be, if it's data is correct. Is it correct in it's data? I honestly have no idea. Is my gut instinct to discount it? Yes, absolutely it is. However, I certainly can't refute any of the data it's presenting me with, so why am I so quick to discount? I shouldn't be.
You're either able to independently judge the veracity or lack of veracity of any given scientific claim, or you're not. If you're not, you need to remind yourself of that, and not be a voice in the mob. I need to remind myself of that too.
That's not someone challenging us to be skeptical and seek out information.
That's "All vaccines bad. Ever."
"Autism, autism, autism."
"Vaccines Did Not Save Us - 2 Centuries of Statistics"
"Autism in Amish Children - 1:10000" - Hmm, this "study" doesn't really consider why the Amish community might be measured differently.
I just see lots of links to studies that were either discredited, or original opining with little objective evidence.
So, automatically? No. But some rebuttals are easier to discount than others - this is one.