You did a solid job tracing the origins of the claim and showing how neither Dr. Tenpenny nor Dr. Thomas provided actual data. That said, your argument could be even stronger if you dug into why these two doctors might convince people despite their loss of medical credibility. For example, Paul Thomas presents cherry-picked data from his patient records that seem to show lower health issues among unvaccinated children, but multiple experts have pointed out these flaws (e.g., small sample sizes, no controls, publication in non-peer-reviewed venues). Adding that kind of analysis would help explain not just that the claim is false, but how bad data gets passed off as truth. That insight would help people better resist future misinformation, too.