You don’t need evidence to prove a negative. In this case the negative is assumed true until you show any evidence to the contrary. And of course when I’m looking into a topic I don’t bother saving links for things that go along with the current narrative. What would be the point?

It’s funny how people get hostile for simply being asked for a source for their claim. One would think you would want people to ask so you could show them the evidence. But after seeing your evidence I get it.

If anything, the ~3% increase in autism as your link shows is an argument for more studies but it doesn’t prove vaccines cause autism.

When someone says “vaccines cause autism” most people don’t think of a 3% raise, they think of a significant raise. If you framed it as “vaccines slightly raise the likelihood of autism” you might find more people willing to listen.