I think people who don't want to vaccinate themselves or their children will have their reasons. Saying no to something you don't agree with seems legitimate to me, and in principle saying no would be enough without giving any further reasons. Often we don't know how to explicitly say the reasons ourselves, we have different thoughts and arguments at different times and it is difficult to give a single reason.

Unfortunately, the 'no' is not accepted by others, especially in relation to vaccination. So we look for arguments to support or reinforce our own rejection. Since it has become customary nowadays to use scientific papers for this purpose, this is what they do. In science, both positions can always be found.

To position oneself as a critic of vaccination is not only not socially acceptable, it threatens to become a taboo subject. I think you might agree that truth is not to be found per se in the majority. So I think it's important to recognise that the widespread support for vaccination is not solely due to the belief that it will work, but that the danger of being ostracised as a refuser and becoming socially unacceptable is a very real danger.

From my point of view, the ostracism and exclusion of vaccination sceptics is illogical, because those who are themselves convinced of vaccination can have themselves vaccinated and can henceforth be relaxed about those who do not. So where is the problem?