I love this guy

I love it when people are just so confidant in conclusions that they personally want be regarded as unquestionable that they set up a website and boldly proclaim that which is ephemeral, to be irrefutable. It cannot be definitively proven one way or another. No matter who does the research. Just for fun, check out the site, I love this guy, and all people like him, my brother included, click this link -> (the ultimate in confidence)  That's confidence. This guy actually has paid ads on Facebook to go to this website page. That's unbelievable confidence.

The concept of science is an ephemeral ideal. There are a few of the sciences that have definitive rules, like arithmetic and geometry. But once past those, mathematics becomes as convoluted and subject to interpretation as the rest. And nowhere are there more ephemeral and disparate interpretations of the observable world than within the science of medicine. Let me amend that, the practice of medicine. I know, when asked most people feel, they truly believe that science is the very concept of precision and without error. Sadly, most people have never taken statistics in college. If they did, they would understand just exactly how imprecise the world of science actually is. Outside basic lower forms of math, ALL sciences are based on interpretations of observable data and conclusions are reached by different methods depending on what is being sought. And more specifically, who is paying.   

However, there are huge numbers of websites that will give interpretations of experimental and observable data with very differing conclusions. But just as we can point out that of the millions of humans that smoke cigarettes, only a small percentage of them will get lung or other cancers. Actually about a third of the women and a fourth of the men. We cannot specifically prove that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Because not everyone gets cancer that smokes. We can't prove that beginning to vaccinate a new born infant with up to 49 total mandated vaccinations in the first two years of that infant's live will cause any neurological problems. It doesn't happen to every child. We can't prove that vaccinating children causes higher infant deaths even though statistically countries that don't even begin the vaccination process until the child is at least 2 years of age have remarkably lower infant deaths than in America where again, there are 49 mandated vaccinations before the age of two. Cuba has a lower infant mortality than America. But not all infants that are vaccinated die. We are all different. Not all children have super IQ's. Not all of them are allergic to peanuts, or shellfish, or gluten. Not all children are allergic to cats. And not all children get autism. In America 1 in 50 do. In America more infants die before the age of 2 than in 33 other countries. All of which mandate fewer vaccinations.

But for many, the science of vaccination is without error, precise in every aspect, and any person that advocates not getting vaccinations is, well, to some, criminal.  

For further reading I found this site, it cites a number of sound scientific studies that show exactly how imprecise the science of vaccinations really is. I have used some of these references here on my own blog. But since I don't have a PhD then I'm not a "REAL" scientist. Those with the lowly Masters of learning are subhuman it would seem. Anyway, here is the work of some real scientists (TOP 6 Reasons) and just to let you know, you don't need a PhD to understand most of it. Just an open mind.