It's all conspiracy theory, pal. You can't bring any 'facts' to the table. The paper that your ilk bring up often is easily debunked using basic math skills; the day the anti-vaxxers can do the same to the established literature is when they'll get my attention. But they never, ever do that, because the facts don't line up with their message.
The only go-to is CONSPIRACY!
And, like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, you keep doing that again and again and people tune you out. Meaning, if there ever IS a legitimate case or concern, you've already destroyed your movement's credibility among normal people and legitimate doctors and scientists.
I linked 50 studies directed your attention to 14 of them, then 4 of them specifically, then you choose a different one (which is fine), that an article linked studies that were supposedly "far better" and yet they themselves were completely inadequate, were of poor design and loaded with conflicts of interest.
You said: "You can't bring any 'facts' to the table."
What are these?
The vaccine compensation program exists, and has paid out nearly 3.5B
In 2011, the US Supreme Court came to the conclusion that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe".
CDC whistleblowers who admit to omitting important data which links vaccines to autism exist.
Vaccines were causing so many problems that the manufacturers were indemnified.
Nobody here has countered the ideas how vaccine safety studies are largely inadequate.
Studies exist that indicate vaccines are dangerous
Aluminum and Mercury are highly neurotoxic.
There are many conflicts of interest surrounding the science, and the vaccine industry in general.
Every one of these is a fact.
As I said, the only fact I need is the fact that the safety studies are inadequate and of poor design. That fact, combined with all the conflicts of interest is reason enough to error on the side of caution.