While there is no doubt that some of them do work, we can't just take a doctors word for it.
Years ago, doctors would say that cigarettes were perfectly fine. How'd that turn out?
Years ago, they said exposure to radiation was perfectly fine, and then people started dropping dead.
You've created a straw man. Proponents of vaccines aren't relying on "taking a doctor's word for it." They're relying on loads of scientific evidence. The CDC runs studies on vaccines constantly.
Doctors failed to warn about the dangers of cigarettes and radiation back in an era when there was a lack of evidence
about the safety of cigarettes or radiation. Then we started gathering the evidence, and the medical community responded appropriately to that evidence by overwhelmingly warning about the dangers those things pose.
Conversely, concerns about vaccine safety started in the 1970s
, and the medical community responded by doing lots and lots and lots of studies. Then we started gathering the evidence, and the medical community responded appropriately to that evidence by overwhelmingly endorsing them because the evidence shows that vaccines save a ton of lives and are pretty damn safe.
If you advocate following the evidence on avoiding cigarettes and radiation, then logically you should follow the evidence on providing vaccines. Correct?