I dont like how he writes his piece with obvious bias and he plays the conspiracy theory card a little too much, but you can tell he feels strongly about it.

You yourself recognized, and pointed out to us, that this man wrote his blog with obvious bias. You also said he plays the conspiracy card too much. Then, you attempted to counter those very big strikes against his blog by saying he felt strongly about the topic. That sure looks to me like you are implying that his passion for the topic is a reason to take him seriously, or at very least should persuade us (as you are trying to do) to read his blog.

It's not that I don't think the guy is passionate--I'm sure he is. I don't want to read his blog because it's a waste time. His arguments, from what I can glean from your posts, have been hashed and rehashed and rehashed by such pillars of the medical research community as Jenny McCarthy and a mommy blogger from Idaho whose name I can't recall at the moment (or ever again). And yes, I've read their stuff, and yes, they read the medical journals too. Despite your protests to the contrary, the MMR-Autism link originates with Wakefield. It is bogus. The latest blogger rehashing Wakefield's bunk, or putting a new twist (well, not even really new twist, just yet another twist) on this consipiracy-theory fantasy is not any more worth reading than McCarthy's website. Although, 20 years ago, she was likely prettier than your guy, so there's that.