How To Debate Science With Pro-Vaxxers

I made a comment on an article:

The healthcare system is clear they don't understand how vaccines work. We do understand an injection with a ‘dead’ piece of virus and a preservative like mercury or an aluminum adjuvant creates an autoimmune response. An organism won't have a reaction without the neurotoxin involved because the virus is dead. However, not every human reacts the same way to a neurotoxin being injected into his or her veins.

A provax respondent takes the bait:

Your first line is nonsense. How vaccines work is very well understood. To deny that is to deny a huge amount of science going back a couple of hundred years and more. In fact, how vaccines work is very well understood and very well established. Stop telling stories.

My rebuttal:

No, it is not well understood how they work. Here is an excerpt from the World Health Organization. You won't have to read far, it's the first thing they say in a 20 page report. I'll cut and paste it for you.

To generate vaccine-mediated protection is a complex challenge. Currently available vaccines have largely been developed empirically, with little or no understanding on how they activate the immune system. Their early protective efficacy is primarily conferred by the induction of antigen-specific anti-bodies.

Here is the definition of Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic: they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument.

That means they're guessing. It's not science, it's statistics.

Oh, here's the link: