I've learned that to effectively speak up for animals a person must learn to deliver potent arguments. From the course I took at Edx.org about climate change denial, I've found out how to present better arguments.
The main issue with vaccines is animal cruelty and testing. An animal rights advocate must focus on the strongest part of the argument holding the moral high ground. Yet, some people still hold onto much weaker arguments.
We must discard the weakest links in the anti-vaccine debate. That is autism and disease. I've done a lot of research and at first I believed that vaccines caused autism. Yet, I am a fallible human being. I was using a form of cognitive bias called conformation bias. I wanted vaccines to cause autism because I am an animal right advocate. Nevertheless, I came to a conclusion first and then looked for evidence to back up my conclusion. A true skeptic or scientist performs the opposite, weighting the evidence and then forming a conclusion.
After weighting the evidence I've come to the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism and overall do more good than harm in regards to humans. Vaccines save human lives, but at the cost of animal lives. That being said, when making an argument you must decide if you want to take the abolitionist or the animal welfare approach.
An abolitionist approach would be to ban animal testing in the research and development of vaccines. An animal welfare approach would be to lessen the suffering inflicted upon animals in the name of vaccine testing.
Why not throw everything in but the kitchen sink?
There will always be some doubt on any major scientific issue, creationism, climate change, and vaccines. So, why not use vaccine deniers' arguments? Here's the problem, humans don't think logically. If you give someone a thousand dollars in scenario A versus giving a person a thousand dollars and a 5 cent off coupon for tissues in scenario B, the person will value scenario A over B.
The same goes with applicants. Applicant X is a person who got perfect SAT scores. Applicant Y also got perfect SAT scores and also worked as a McDonald's cashier for a week. Applicant X will win, because the much less impressive quality diminishes the impressive achievement.
I'm sure there is some fancy scientific term for what I am describing, I will try to look up the term later. Furthermore, by throwing in the autism argument against vaccines we are effectively incriminating the wrong cause. This allows the real cause of the increase in autism to go unchecked. The real cause of autism increases is air pollution from traffic and broader detection.
"Being exposed to high levels of air pollution from traffic may raise the risk of autism, researchers say."
Torturing mice, data, and figures in the name of antivaccine pseudoscience"  David Gorski on October 30, 2017 sciencebasedmedicine.org
Three dozen dead monkeys later, vaccines still don’t cause autism"  David Gorski on October 5, 2015
Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Vaccines also will have saved $295 billion in direct costs, such as medical expenses, and a total of more than $1.3 trillion in societal costs over that time,"