Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

It appears, that you are trying to argue for me, in order to attack some position more easily.   If you have a point, then perhaps you would be better off to state it plainly, rather than trying to focus on me.   I'm not trying to dance around anything, and I think that what you are trying to get at, was covered in the OP and hasn't changed.   I don't know what you mean by the double talk. 

And if you want to convince me of anything, you will need to provide some reason or argument.  An incredulous stare isn't going to cut it!

Again, I asked, you did not answer. So again:

"What in their anecdotal evidence do you not find convincing or believable?

I normally do believe that they where vaccinated, and where diagnosed with autism shortly after.

And could you compare/contrast the differences between your "not normally" position with this case and in other cases (your choice) where it would be "yes" (choose your own word if you find yes not fitting).

I'm not really sure what you are asking here?

What cherry picking data? What hasty generalization? What limited accounts?"

Cherry picking data, means that you are only taking the data which supports your case, while ignoring that which does not.
Hasty Generalization and limited accounts I guess is kind of redundant.  It means forming a general conclusion, based on a small sample size.