I am okay with that.   Good logic and detective work says if something like autism has skyrocketed, you look for reasons.  

Science is oddly schizophrenic on vaccines, as well, so I can understand the confusion - everyone believes that Big Pharm is just out to make money yet if a company loses a $5 billion lawsuit and then starts marketing a vaccine that hardly works to teenage girls, a whole subset of science will attack everyone who is skeptical (skepticism only being allowed for a few things) that the vaccines are not just a way to make money.

But if the data changes and politicians and celebrities stick to their old beliefs anyway, like the mercury in vaccines being gone and autism still being high, it is zealotry, which is anti-science.   

I pick on Obama because a lot of younger scientists who only came up during Bush thought he, and all Republicans, were more anti-science than anyone else ever.   Which isn't the case.    I predicted that Obama would be no different for science than Bush (or McCain) in the big ways, because I am older and have seen it before, and he hasn't done anything to prove me wrong so far.