I certainly can't address all your points as we're quickly spiraling into incomprehensibility, but I don't think it's unfair to say that for the majority of those points as "there's at least a small chance they are possible". That doesn't warrant a victory lap as any sort of triumph of the skeptical viewpoint. You've shifted your argument from your doubts have been proven true to your doubts still existing, which is incredibly fitting for the your initial argument and vaccine skepticism in general.
Incomprehensibility? Where exactly is what I write incomprehensible? And the response to not understanding some points is that you don't address any points and declare victory? That's bad faith.
Meanwhile my post fades into grey soon to be invisible and then the next person like you can claim that they just don't see those science-minded vaccine skepticism comments / posts.
> You've shifted your argument from your doubts have been proven true
No, that's not what I did. I showed that there is actually evidence for each of the points you brought up.
