Other than the simple examples (polio, smallpox, etc.) ... could you elaborate? Say, for example, the Hep. B vaccine given to infants (as in, at birth)?
Are you arguing for vaccination in general or arguing, specifically, for every single vaccination that is recommended?
It's simply not as clear as you want to believe, with reference specific vaccines. And no, I don't actually subscribe to the debunked/fraudulent vaccine-gut-autism link by Wakefield. But I have actually looked for specific data regarding specific vaccines and found them to be incredibly lacking. Or non-existent.
In the case of the Hep B vaccine, it is given to infants, and yet, according to the CDC, the way infants get Hep B:
How does a baby get Hepatitis B?
A baby can get Hepatitis B from an infected mother during childbirth.
But the infant is given the vaccine regardless of whether the mother has it. Huh. Yes, there are risks related to Hep B, but what are those risks to the infant if the mother is actually tested? Suddenly, we are narrowing it down to the risk of getting Hep B and the risks of the illness itself ... narrowing those risks down to the amount of women who are tested for Hep B and are given a false negative...
tl;dr: don't assume that people who refuse individual vaccines (1) think all vaccines are bad and (2) only research quack sites.