Yes, all those people are wrong. They have an agenda and they are taking facts out of context and misinterpreting data in order to back up that agenda.

The way they reached the conclusion on vaccines being unsafe with the CDC data was to look at a particular racial subset (black people) and the statistical results from that subgroup. However, the sample size was far too small to be statistically significant and as such those conclusions are complete junk. The CDC has confirmed this and so has multiple other people with statistical expertise (FYI: I'm also considered an expert in statistics).

The "whistleblower" was a CDC employee who was being interviewed by an anti-vaccination advocacy group, who asked him about the results from the racial sub-sample and his answer can basically be summarized as "yes that group did show a negative affect, but the sample size was far to small to take those results seriously. Someone would have to do a broader study with a much larger sample for that group in order to reach any conclusions". The interviewer took the "yes that group did show a negative effect" part of the quote, dropped everything else, and ran with a "CDC has a whistle blower on vaccines!" narrative. From there a bunch of other anti-vax groups clung on to the story as falsely reported by the interviewer.

How can you possibly argue that is legitimate reporting? They blatantly left out key parts of the quote to suit their agenda. Those were not the results of the study, they are falsely reporting the results and falsely framing a truncated quote from a CDC employee. How is this legitimate? It isn't.

So yes, all those people reporting it are wrong. They are all re-quoting one original article which was falsified to the point where it should be criminal.

Not letting unvaccinated children in the school isn't discriminating any more than keeping criminals in jail is discriminating. Nice try though.

Liking this issue to the nazi's is despicable, by the way.