I have read that stuff, and I have looked at the statistics, and vaccine reactions happen - but are very rare (and I'm sorry it happened in your family).
If you banned all things which had any risk of killing or seriously hurting someone accidently or due to a rare reaction there'd be nothing left....
Did I suggest that all risky things should be banned? I don't think so.
I did complain that there is no effort to identify the sub-groups who might be at-risk for severe reaction, even when some of these factors are already known. for example, there is no pre-screening for mitochondrial disorder, even though a significant number of autistic children who have also had severe vaccine reactions have tested positive for mitochondrial disorder, and one famous case of autism (Hannah Poling) has been ruled to be the result of vaccinating a child with pre-existing mitochondrial disorder.
Another example would be vitamin deficiencies. No effort to test anyone for vitamin deficiencies before vaccinating, either, even though it's known that certain deficiencies predispose people to complications from both disease AND vaccines.
And those who have had vaccine reactions in their families, or have seen them in their friends' and neighbors' families, will tell you that vaccine reactions are no longer rare. Many school nurses whose careers span a couple of decades have gone on record with their observations of the increase in vaccine reactions--as well as the fact that many medical professionals incorrectly dismiss these reactions, simply because they didn't observe them themselves.
But you can go on denying that vaccine reactions happen more than the pharmaceutical companies want us to know. It won't change the facts, just like it didn't change the facts when people repeated the tobacco companies assertions that cigarettes were healthy, or Pfizer's assertion that Lipitor didn't cause muscle weakness, kidney failure, and other serious complications, or Merck's assertion that Vioxx didn't cause deaths.