Are we arguing the information provided or the sources themselves? Because we can take it there right now: you posted a link to a blog first of all, to argue that vaccines are efficacious, AFTER trying to strawman/non sequitur that thimerosal doesn't cause autism to which I posted an article compiling numerous NUMEROUS citation to verifiable sources which have no question of credibility or collusion, which show a clear link between autism and thimerosal, and then I used the first source in that BLOG show that vaccination didn't account for the massive decline in morbidity or mortality from your own articles (dubious) source's citation, but now that you brought up the validity of my sources, that blog relied heavily on numerous dubious claims by the CDC and other vaccine collusion actors, which have a thorough history of under-reporting and misreporting incidences of vaccine induced infections and mortality, let alone the numerous other fraudulent activities which over the last 4 years I have become aware of with those "sources" your very sketchy blog article by A MOM, non professional who parroted those statistics as fact (fallacy of lying with statistics) and now you want to hint that my sources look sketchy, GET THE FUCK OUT, I will happily source all my claims (cdc under-reporting, collusion with vaccine manufactures/developers, fraud and lying with statistics) and determine exactly what?

Or do I just need to point you to the study that says and I repeat:

This means that, predicting an antibody has high affinity for the immunizing antigen is extremely difficult if not impossible

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160575/