What Are The Hallmarks of the "Anti-Vaccine" Ideology?

What defines someone as anti-vaccinist? There's no one, agreed-upon definition.

Robert Todd Carroll at the excellent Skeptics Dictionary has a long, discursive entry on some of the aspects of being against vaccination, in the entry Anti-Vaccine Movement. He notes at least two prongs:

1. Those who "deny a causal connection between vaccines and the eradication or significant reduction of diseases like smallpox, polio, measles, and rubella."  (The "vaccines didn't save us" myth.)
2. Those who believe that receipt of vaccines cause disease. One example is the cadre who continue to believe that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause autism. 

David Gorski, MD, writing at another excellent resource, Science-Based Medicine, published  What does “anti-vaccine” really mean? on November 1, 2010, in which he discusses the various nuances in the anti-vaccine community.  he has a simple litmus test:

....one rather reliable way of differentiating fear from real anti-vaccine views is to ask a simple question: Which vaccines do you think that, barring medical contraindications, children should receive? If the answer is “none,” then I’m pretty much done. I know I’m almost certainly dealing with an anti-vaccinationist. 

 Gorski goes on to draw a distinction between the vaccine-hesitant (those who have fears about vaccine safety and efficacy) from more committed vaccine-refusers and denialists.  The latter category of people have some hallmarks in their thinking:

• Denying that they are anti-vaccine ("No, I'm pro-safe vaccine", while denying that there are any vaccines that are both safe and necessary.)
• Generally relying on logical fallacies.
• Frequent use of the  Nirvana fallacy, "wherein if something is not perfect it is claimed to be utterly worthless." (The flu vaccine is often dismissed with this fallacy.)
• Intense reliance on "false cause" reasoning (formally, "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.)
• Attributing harms to the vaccine that the "scientific data definitely don’t support as being reasonable or legitimate." (This is Carroll's point #2.)
• Distortion of the scientific evidence, especially using cherry picking of the scientific evidence
• Exaggeration of the risks of vaccines relative to the risks of suffering a vaccine-preventable disease.
• Prizing anecdotal evidence over more careful science ("Thousands of parents who saw their children suffer vaccine injury can't be wrong")
• Reliance on conspiracy theories to explain away inconstancies
• Reliance upon aggression (attacks on character) and silencing (shouting down, deleting comments) rather than engaging in honest exchanges of views. 

To summarize, I think we can safely say a person or organization is anti-vaccine if he or she exhibits at least three of the following points.

1. Claiming that all vaccines are unsafe and ineffective
2. Claiming better sanitation and nutrition account for the 20th century decline in vaccine-preventable diseases
3. Claiming that vaccines cause diseases and conditions such as autism, asthma, SIDS, or shaken baby syndrome
4. Claiming that anecdotal evidence is superior to scientific evidence; rejecting science and epidemiology
5. Cherry picking and misrepresenting the evidence
6. Using  logical fallacies without shame in arguing
7. Conspiracy mongering
8. Silencing criticism (especially by deleting onlin material), rather than responding to it
9. (If in business) Profiting from the sale of products and services that spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about vaccines, or products and services that are said to be superior to vaccines and conventional medicine in preventing disease