I just love the way you dismiss valid arguments as one of the major forms of fallacy, without apparently understanding what the fallacies actually are.
Referring to the large body of research, for example, is not a “call to authority” fallacy. The only “authority” involved is the law of nature, since the research had to take place within a natural system and its results arise from natural laws.
A “call to authority” fallacy occurs when someone who may be an expert on something is quoted as an expert in a completely different subject about which he knows little or nothing—for example, when Barbara Loe Fisher, who has a BA in English, is used as an expert source on vaccine issues, despite the fact that she knows utterly nothing about the science of vaccines.
I can go through the rest of your misuse of the concept of fallacies, but it is a waste of time. I have found that anti-vaxxers typically are not interested in science or children’s health—they are all about the conspiracy mongering. I see no reason to believe that you are any different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it."
Ironically, 20 years of Internet discussions have made me quite an... authority on this subject. I have become ridiculously good at recognizing fallacies from long experience, and these are TEXTBOOK call to authority fallacies.