The author certainly has a point, most people resist change, especially when it involves changing fundamental beliefs about religion or the role humanity plays on the earth. Although, it seems like he is trying to dismiss any criticism of mainstream consensus opinion as a delusion of emotionally invested individuals.
I reckon that is a dangerous assumption to make as consensus opinion doesn't have the best track record in getting things right. Think eugenics or the flat earth theory.
While personally I find it impossible to argue against climate change after looking into the available data there are merits to the question marks over vaccines and even creationism.
But lets leave creationism Vs evolution alone. Vaccines are much a little less controversial and you might find this interesting if you like biology. One of the essential ingredients in a vaccine is an Immunologic adjuvant, they basically antagonise your immune system into reacting strongly to the denatured virus which you're being immunised against. this like explains a bit about the mechanism and the different types of adjuvants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant#Adjuvants_and_toll-like_receptors/
Most of the adjuvants listed there aren't really a problem for the human body, however the double-stranded RNA as well as DNA fragments are a cause for concern.
Double stranded RNA molecules are an area of intense study in the burgeoning discipline of gene therapy, specifically they are being used to activate or deactivate the genes inside target cells. Now, I do a little bit of biotech investing so i'm familiar with a lot of the proposed methods and trials of using such molecules is a clinical capacity and they are extremely vigorous. The RNA sequences are designed to affect specific genes within the genome of an individual and the most effective treatments are encapsulated within a lipid membrane which will only bind to the protein receptors of a specific cell type.
Now the specific accusation of the MMR vaccine causing autism, in light of this information is actually quite plausible as childhood development including neural development involves the activation and deactivation of thousands of genes in a progressive interrelated fashion and RNA interference could cause a deviation from the normal sequence of gene expression.
When I look at clinical trial information for vaccines I to do not even see a mention of RNA interference let alone DNA recombination, which is a lot more complicated.
Now the problem with this issue is that it's kindof like opening up a pandoras box, because everyones genome is slightly different there can be no absolute statement efficacy regarding the results of introducing this kind of substance into the human body. To even begin to approach the issue, all of the nucleic acid adjuvants commonly used in vaccines would have to be sequenced and then a full assay of their effects would have to be carried out on every cell type found in the human body and this would have to be repeated for a range of genomes which should represent the genetic configuration of at least the majority of the poulation.
To put this in perspective, it requires research which would make the human genome project look like a postgrad study. So given that the traditional development model for for vaccines requires that the developer pays the bill for pre-clinical trials, not to mention the potential law suits that may happen after conclusive result, I can see why they don't want to look into this. What really concerns me more is the fact that our public health officials as well as academic institutions are also dismissing this possibility either out of ignorance or being personally invested in pleasing big pharma who are funding partners in a lot of the public sector research carried out in most western countries.
Generally I find that money is a much stronger motivation for wilful delusion than emotions.