You have described what you see as the behavior of "anti-vaxers" many times.
Here are some examples:
There likely isn't one. From my experience, most pro-vaxxers don't attribute things to vaccines (whether positive OR negative) based on anecdotes not backed up by science. That is the difference.
This is saying that people who criticize vaccines ignore the science and just depend on anecdotes. Definitely a negative characterization.
They are supposed to prevent, meaning because scientific evidence has demonstrated that to be true. Non-vaxxers will attribute almost every negative ailment under the sun to vaccines whether there is good evidence to support it or not, based on anecdotes. The whole point is that they would never consider positive anecdotes as evidence in and of themselves unless they were backed up by evidence- double standard.
Another example of a negative characterization, which, I'll point out, is not actually based on scientific research but just on TEACOZY's observations. Oh my.
Dr Bob Sears faces possible revocation of medical license
This whole expert thing is a huge double standard on the anti/non-vaccine side. An oncologist isn't an expert on the immune system and we shouldn't listen to what he says but former gastroenterologists and kidney doctors are FREQUENTLY quoted on their views on vaccines and other infectious diseases like polio and smallpox. Then people say pediatricians aren't experts in vaccines and learn nothing about them in medical school....up until a pediatrician comes out against them. Then suddenly their view on vaccines is of utmost significance and importance. Then we have the double standard on the legal expert thing that Dakotacakes pointed out. Etc. Etc.
I think Dakotacakes hit the nail on the head with her observation that the way non/anti-vaccine people seem to determine whether someone is an expert or not is based on what their views on vaccines are. Against vaccines= expert. In favor of vaccines = big pharma shills who have no idea what they're talking about.
This one is particularly amusing given that teacozy treated Offit's opinion on the history of DDT as though he were an expert on the topic.
I'm not going to go back and dig through hundreds more quotes to find more derogatory remarks. But they are there.
So, what is my point? It is obvious to me that the people who support vaccines consider people who question vaccines as:
destructive of the public good.
unable to understand science
and so on and on.
Whereas, for those who criticize vaccines, they seem themselves as:
distrustful of drug companies and regulatory agencies, based on their track record
I'll be happy for anyone to call me anti-vaccine, if they mean the second list. But I'm not willing to bow down and accept the first list, especially as the justifications for those labels are based on:
3) refusal to discuss my actual points, questions and opinions
4) arguments from those high experts Oracular and speculative rapture (oh, and Dorit).