You can spot some tactics of vaccine disinformation very easily - the most clear two to note are a reliance on emotional, personal stories rather than looking at wider data trends/stats, and the second is picking up on any random aspect that "sounds" scary and playing up that scary-sounding factor - you can spot these because as soon as you either consider the alternative or look at the wider picture they stop making any sense. They only sound scary taken out of context. A lot of antivax claims of this type directly contradict each other.
The emotional stories are used in a very manipulative way because when you are faced with someone's very real grief and trauma, what kind of unsympathetic arsehole would start questioning the facts of the situation? And of COURSE when you see someone grieving their child you would do anything that has even a chance of preventing that happening to you. The problem is that the stories are generally presented in a very misleading way as though a vaccine is somehow proven to be directly responsible for the problem, even though in the majority of cases it's not a proven link and in some cases it's even been ruled out by investigation. And as many of them are collected as possible so that if you are viewing this you start to feel like this is a really widespread issue affecting a large amount of people. It's a psychological trick because our brains aren't really set up to process massive numbers like the amount of people that we can have access to on large internet forums - you see this here on MN when people say "it seems like everyone earns £100k plus on here" "everyone on MN seems to have an autistic child" "loads of people on MN claim to have had a contraceptive failure - they must be lying". So if you see, say, 20 stories of something happening then it starts to feel like it's a common occurrence because if you think of something you personally know 20 people that it's happened to - that's something incredibly common. And our brains can't really tell the difference.
The "random scary aspect" is stuff like saying oh we should give single vaccines instead of several in one, why don't they do that, it would be better, surely it's dangerous to give loads at once??
It's illogical because:
If you think about it for just five seconds and imagine how many appointments you'd need just to get all the first year's vaccines (14, not counting boosters, combined into 6 different jabs) spaced apart the right amount of time, allowing for all the various rules about what's too early and what's too late and how many boosters etc - it would take you years to get through the initial course, GPs would have time for nothing except giving vaccinations 24/7 and how many kids would end up with partial protection because their parents got fed up with the inconvenience, the child became terrified of the doctor, records were lost or forgotten or not properly updated when they moved house - just the logistical and admin nightmare of getting all this right is absolutely ridiculous. They have enough trouble getting people to come for the appointments they currently recommend.
Also, would you rather have 6 injections or 1? Bearing in mind that the antivaxxers are supposedly scared of adjuvants in vaccines (6x as many of those), and everyone knows that the process of getting an injection is painful (6x as many of those) and the short-term, non-dangerous reaction such as fever, fatigue etc can be unpleasant (6x as many of those) and they claim that vaccines are a "trigger" for genetic factors (6x as many of those!)
Plus if it takes years to get a vaccine course which would usually be over in about four appointments, that's a lot of time children are just left, without the protection of the vaccine (though this is at least consistent with the antivax "logic" that it doesn't matter because the vaccines don't work, the illnesses aren't really dangerous and herd immunity is a myth 🤷♀️)
Lastly, the established evidence (as usual) shows the literal exact opposite of what is being claimed - the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of the combined ones are much stronger/better than any single ones that we have access to. AND if you especially want to, you can usually spread them out if there are singles available and/or if they are just singles given in the same appointment. So it's a complete non argument, is it unsafe to give several at once? No. And it's better to give several at once for reasons of convenience and getting the side effects over with at the same time.
Doesn't matter what it is, you can usually do the same process for any of the totally random, "this sounds scary" clickbait/gotcha type claims.