The entire point of the story you posted was a mother asked for assurance from a doctor that the vaccine wouldn't injure her child. The doctor dismissed he request.

The point was that she expected something that she knew couldn't be given: an assurance that there was no risk. There is risk in walking to the shop. There is risk in literally everything. The doctor could not assure that there was no risk because there was a risk.

The final two lines of the story were:

Sacha muttered something under her breath.

“What's in the injection?” said James. “You know, you start asking questions like that, you might get science back...”

The problem was not that she was criticising vaccines. The problem was that she had decided that vaccines were unsafe, and was cherry-picking evidence to support that.

The reaction would be the same to people who say "vaccines are safe because I've never got ill from them" or "can you assure me that this seat belt will not harm my child?". Very few people use science properly; even I don't, most of the time, which I frequently beat myself up about.

I'd like to have a nice, sensible reasoned discussion about this topic. But you keep calling me a shill and criticising me personally to discredit my arguments. We've never even agreed on what we're arguing; you seem insistent that no things called vaccines are effective and all things called vaccines are unsafe when I know for a fact that that's not the case.

So. Are we ready to be civil, and discuss this as close to rationally as we can? And ready to accept criticisms of our arguments, without going on the defensive (because making a flawed argument doesn't mean what you're arguing is wrong)? If so, I'm happy to engage in reasoned discussion with you about this, without the criticisms I've been making.

I will. Will you?