How to Debate Vaccination Culpability with Pro-Vaxxers

On January 7th, 2014, nine years after the fact, in the case of Karsen Steele Waters, the United States Court of Federal Claims made it's final decision.

The undersigned finds that there is not a preponderance of the evidence showing that Karsen’s injuries were caused or significantly aggravated by his February 19, 2005 vaccinations. Although Karsen’s vaccinations may have caused a low grade fever or otherwise triggered his first seizure on February 20, 2005, neither that initial seizure nor his vaccinations caused or significantly aggravated his Dravet syndrome and resulting neurological complications. Rather, his SCN1A genetic mutation is the sole cause of his injuries. For that reason, the undersigned finds by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent has provided an alternative cause of Karsen’s injuries, and, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to compensation.

This is how I debated a provaxxer in the comments of a recent pro-vaccination article.  The pro-vaxxer responds to the above:

What do you want me to say, Albert? That the courts made the wrong decision? Because it sounds to me like they made the right one. Dravet Syndrome is a genetic disorder.

My repsonse:
So your saying the health practitioner doesn't need to check for genetic weaknesses in people before they give them vaccines that might hurt them?  If the vaccine gives someone diabetes then that would be the injured persons problem because why?  Because they have a pancreas?  Perhaps there is no culpability for manufacturers that make toy parts which wedge in children's mouths and choke them to death.  Let the buyer beware!  That's a famous real estate saying.  Let's apply that to vaccines to.  Let the vaccinated beware!  15 hours after your receive a vaccine if you turn epileptic, that's your problem.