A non peer-reviewed article, published by two people who have no institutional affiliation, one of whom gives their address as a P.O. Box, using nothing but statistical analysis to derive a correlation that supports what appears to be a predetermined conclusion?
No, I am not at all convinced.
Google tells me that Miller is a journalist, and Goldman is a computer scientist. In other words, they are not researchers and have no research training. I’m even less convinced.
Show me meaningful analysis. Show me where the infant mortality was compared, apples to apples—infants from the same backgrounds, vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.
I happen to know, because I’ve read hundreds of statistical analyses (I hesitate to call them “studies” because they contain no experimental data), and I shared an office with a statistician for three years, that the vast majority of statistical analyses are junk. Get a good statistician to analyze the data, and almost any hypothesis can be “proven” with statistics. It all depends on which number sets are included, and how they’re combined.