No, by winning we mean that statists like you are being denied the right to supplant parental authority in medical decision making for children.
Just as the AAP relies on a fraudulent gun study (Kellerman) to justify their anti-gun position, the vaccine pushers have zero long-term, double blind studies on safety or efficacy to justify approval on the shots.
Anyone with the interest can look up deaths from diseases supposedly eradicated by vaccines, and see that 90-95% of the decrease in deaths had occurred prior to the introduction of the particular vaccination. That the vaccine pushers attribute those improvements to vaccination is a big indication of the deception in their position.
When it comes to public health, the Supreme Court made a decision long before my grandmother was born, stating that the state can, in fact, compel the use of vaccines in the interest of public health: Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Even if your refusal to protect your children affected no one other than your own children, I have my doubts as to the legal tolerance regarding such action. Children have, in fact, been removed from parents who refuse to provide them with adequate medical care. I think that the reason behind the state interceding in these situations is that the children are not your property but are, in fact, human beings. They are too immature to make their own decisions, but if they were intellectually and emotionally capable of doing so on a rational basis, they would choose to have the medical care that is most conducive to good health. Thus, although you are free to refuse medical care, you cannot refuse your children's medical care.
BTW, the anti-vax "statistics" that purportedly show that deaths from these diseases dropped before vaccines were introduced are bogus. Good sanitation did not change the pathogenicity of microorganisms, their mode of transmission, or anything else about their biology. While it is true that providing supportive care helps some patients pull through diseases that would otherwise kill them, supportive care has no impact on the number of people who acquire the disease. Furthermore, there is no rational argument for spending tens of thousands of dollars and tying up other medical resources to try to save the life of someone afflicted with a disease that can be prevented with a $20 vaccine.