This motherfucker rated me "late" on a post where I pointed out to him that him shoving the board rules in my face is dumb.I have answered your question: you simply refused to listen.
There is no proof that vaccines, when properly manufactured, and given to someone who is not immunocompromised, have adverse effects. Any payments from a malpractice suit based on vaccines would happen because a vaccination was administered to someone with a compromised immune system, or because errors were made during the manufacture process. These are cases of medical malpractice, not proof that vaccines are harmful. I can find plenty of court cases where a court finds a heart surgeon guilty of medical malpractice due to complications from heart surgery; this does not prove that heart surgery itself is inherently harmful. This is especially true given that these payments could only happen from a civil suit, which only requires a 51% likeliness threshold; far beneath anything "conclusive".
If you do not believe in a vast conspiracy to cover up something that would otherwise be trivially exposed, what is your alternative hypothesis as to why the dangers of vaccines haven't been exposed?
It's not worth arguing with him, he's clearly exceptional.