We can bring in Harvard if that helps:Harvard Immunologist Demolishes Mandatory Vaccination Logic
If you look at the Measles Paradox, you will notice that most measles outbreaks happen in individuals who had been vaccinated:Measles Paradox
Now of course it could be argued that the influence of the vaccine had weakened over time and it could be argued that the populations were not equally distributed, but that overlooks the low responsiveness of some population groups and the risk those who have vaccinated themselves pose to the rest. The evidence out there does not rule out that model I proposed. Would it not be more appropriate to blame imperfect solutions and work towards something superior? At the end of the day the mainstream scientific world has enough trouble curing a simple cold, without even talking about curing allergies and more advanced diseases. Why be content with that?
As far as placebos are concerned, how would that work with animals who are given homeopathic medicine and measurable results are observed? Would it work because the animal believes in the placebo? The first stage of science would seem to me to be to figure out what works, not why it works. Models have to conform to reality instead of attempting to conform reality to models.
The influence of power on science should never be underestimated. A nice example of this is banking. If privately owned central banks create money and have the monopoly on that creation of money and charge interest on that money (or better said fiat currency), the only thing you know for certain is that on an international level not all parties will be able to repay what they lent. Say a central bank brings $100 into circulation and charges 1% yearly interest (in a protectionist closed off society). How is that society going to come up with $101 by the end of the year when that $100 is the entire money supply? The population has no authority to create that extra $1. It would be called counterfeiting if they created an extra $1 by themselves. Lending more does not circumvent the problem, but it is that reason that that national debts of most countries steadily rise. If science was not compromised in this area, it would have exposed the anomaly. There is either an interest payment or inflation, but both denote an obvious scam.
What people consider as science is not always very scientific. Consider burn marks on your hand. Would you be inclined to put your hand in cold water or hot water when that happens? Have you ever tried purposefully burning both hands and holding one hand in warm water and one hand in cold water? The hand held in warm water will hurt far more initially, but will heal far quicker. Ironic, is it not?
Science is more often the realisation how little we know than the assumption that we know everything. The dominant Aristotelian perspective on science (as opposed to the Platonic perspective) at any rate relies on probabilities to define everything. Here we once again we run into the contradiction that we like to state only certainties, but in Aristotelian science we can only talk about probabilities.