Aside from my opinions about vaccination, I remain perplexed by the dialogue here. nearly all studies anyone cites are correlational, and the drive to interpret these relationships as causal is strong but pathological. It is recognized that 99.9% of all people that die in United States have eaten pickles? Is there a relationship? Is correlational data indicative of anything? It is there support for a hypothesis of a causal relationship?
It boils down to a simple thing. Data against vaxxing is poor, to a great degree unscientific, and is only, at best, correlational. One can designate a conclusion beforehand, then interpret data to fit that agenda, and voila, we have “studies” to support our position. Sorry, but that is “junk science”. I suggest we revisit the scientific method, and then examine studies to see what they mean.