I didn’t expect anything but an off hand dismissal of other sources from you.
Anything that goes against your or the medical community’s narrative is by default discredited by you all.
I analyzed the information at one link that you provided, which turned out to be such a time-consuming and wordy process that I decided not to analyze the rest of the links at the time. I also told you that I am perfectly capable of analyzing the other links, with the implication that I would do so if you insist.
How is that an "off-hand" dismissal of anything?
Do you want me to follow the other links, read them, dig through the anti-science blogs to find enough information to locate the original data at the source, and then tell you why the original studies do not support the narrative that the professional antivaxxers told you they proved? (A yes or no answer is sufficient here.)
Anything that goes against your or the medical community’s narrative is by default discredited by you all.
On the one side is the medical research community which does all of the experiments and studies that reveal information about our biology and our health. On the other side are the professional antivaxxers/anti-sciencers who dig through our studies and then post them as proof of whatever non-scientific (and scary) claim they are pushing. Often, the study conclusion is diametrically opposite from what the professional charlatans claim the study showed. There is, therefore, no reason to take seriously anyone who makes claims that contradict the current knowledge about medical science.
Oh, and thank you very much for recognizing that I am a bona fide expert in medical research. If you would go on to compare me to Dr. Anthony Fauci (as others have done), I would be very humbled and honored.