Alright. Let's break this "source" down.

[1] "Although many people are aware of the link between vaccines and cases of autism in children,"
Source linked is "vaccineinjurynews.com" - not a peer reviewed journal.

[2] "what's not so commonly known is the fact that vaccines also cause food allergies – and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has even corroborated the link in one of their own studies."
The entire article, despite mentioning studies multiple times, refuses linking directly to any study. This is a huge red flag. This means they do not want you to investigate for yourself, and instead rely on their cherry-picked excerpts.

[3] They finally link a study that simply corroborates that child allergies are on the rise.

[4] "But more recent research has reconfirmed the link between vaccines and food allergies, including a study published in 2015 in the Journal of Developing Drugs."
Again, they avoid, at all costs, creating a simple link to the study. Instead we will have to find the study ourselves by googling their quotes. At least we know the publication date and the journal. They constantly link back to themselves. Every shred of evidence comes from them, endless links back to naturalnews.com. Another huge red flag.

[5] I have located the study they refuse to link to. Here is the link.
https://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-foodallergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-2329-6631-1000137.php?aid=60994

[6] Their cited sources at the bottom of the page do not even include the study this article revolves around. The first citation is, wait for it, the daily sheeple... Wow. One is a pubmed link about how child allergies are rising, the rest are the same kind of wacko-publications as naturalnews. Alright, this usually means that the author of this article hasn't even read the study themself, they're just copy-pasting from the other sources. It's a game of chinese telephone and finally we have found the original source, despite their efforts to hide it. Let's take a look.

[7] What does the abstract say, that natural news doesn't?
"Children today have fewer childhood infectious diseases. They have less exposure to helminths. C-section birth rates have increased in the last few decades by 50%. C-section births are known to result in sub-optimal gut micro biome in the newborn. All the above result in an immune imbalance biased towards atopy. Vaccine schedules today include 30-40 shots. Up to five shots may be simultaneously administered in one sitting. Vaccines contain adjuvants such as pertussis toxins and aluminum compounds that also bias towards allergy. Adjuvants also increase the immunogenicity of injected food proteins. This combination of atopic children and food protein injection along with adjuvants, contributes to millions developing lifethreatening food allergies. Given the scale and severity of the food allergy epidemic, urgent action is needed to change vaccine policy concerning vaccine specifications, manufacture, vaccine package insert documentation requirements, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the National Vaccine Injury compensation program. Many researchers have called for the removal of food proteins from vaccines and re-evaluation of adjuvants such as aluminum compounds. In the interim, food allergy warnings can be included in vaccine package inserts. Simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines can be stopped to avoid the combined negative effects of multiple food proteins and adjuvants."

Quite compelling, I must say.

Why does natural news not want you to have easy access to the actual study, given it supports their article? Chances are that they never actually read it themselves and just copied excerpts from another quack health site. Not good journalism at all.

Food allergies are serious. So are smallpox, polio, and numerous other ailments for which we can thank vaccines for all but eliminating. At no point in the study do the researchers advocate not vaccinating your child. Vaccination is one of the most miraculous medical advances in human history, and has reduced child mortality dramatically. The fact that the researchers do not advocate for ending vaccination is probably one reason why "Natural News" does not want you to read the research for yourself.

These scientists are not stupid, they know the clear benefits of vaccination. They are advocating for alteration of vaccine formula and a change to vaccination scheduling.

Natural News has a clear anti-vaccination bias (which is a shame, because the anti-vax movement has directly lead to children dying in my province, thanks to a smallpox comeback). In conclusion, according to the study, you would be a fool not to vaccinate your child, because smallpox is horrible.

Do not depend on shit sites like this for medical advice people. Do not condemn your children to sickly lives because of this brainwashing. Do your own research. These people are idiotic, profit-driven nutcases.

Ask yourself: "Why didn't they link the study? What are they hiding?"

WHY?