No. The purpose of me citing the sciencemag.org article was to explain the "vaccine court," what it does, and what the outcomes are. It does that very well citing statistics from the court.
You have not presented a "scientific" article at all. It is discombobulated opinion and lies from a blog. What you have presented is an article from a Doc Oz-type promotion site that misquotes outcomes from a variety of papers--some of which have absolutely nothing to do with vaccination. Both Blaylock and Sinatra are anti-vaxxer promoters of quack cures for various maladies.