...that they find on the internet are actually proof of something. This "article" was written by an artist, and published on "DC Dirty Laundry". That doesn't immediately mean we should discredit it, but it ought to give us some huge red flags.

When I read articles like this, I start by checking the links they have which supposedly validate the claims with sources. But, guess what? Every link I tried goes to other even sketchier websites. For example, "gardasil_and_unexplained_deaths.com", "activistpost.com", "healthfreedomidaho.com" and "naturalnews.com". When they are supposedly referencing court rulings, why don't they link to these rulings directly? Or sources from legitimate news sources that are reporting on the proceedings?

So, I googled. I found this:


And this:


Neither of those were necessarily "legitimate" news sources either, but they appeared much better sourced, and they provide some good rebuttal to your article.

To me, comparing the articles I looked at, it's no question which has more credibility. But anti-vaxxers just take the opinions of people not trained in the field, and they stop there. My opinion is the article you posted is a load of fear-mongering garbage, and to take it at face value is not smart.