Mandatory Vaccinations

Uh, I don't get it completely, so please enlighten me. How did discovering a however-you-look-at-it accomplice in crime turn out to be a void-all-accusation warranty? Just because he shares the conclusion with another group of researchers doesn't mean he's automatically earnest. Yes, it does void the mainstream media's accusation, but uh, hello, mainstream media? What is it doing here in a scientific controversial issue? Controlling the people's minds? That's what you care about, isn't it? Else, why would you attack the media there?
It also means his findings are not fabricated. Uh, what? That's assuming Dr. John Angus Walker-Smith is anything but questionable, which I don't think is the case.

So it's illogical to assume that Dr. Walker-Smith can vouch for Wakefield. What's more, it also makes more sense to hypothesize that Wakefield copied the work, whose authenticity I won't discuss because it'll just be repeating the Brian Deer's articles you are so familiar with. But I digress. I make clear lines between what is logical, and what is logically hypothetical.