Vaccination & epidemic

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Naturally, we could go on all day with this kind of shit. And it wouldn't prove ANYTHING. If we wanted to address the above paragraph, we would have to address each What If entirely and provide proof that each What If was not true. But nobody can do that, because it's hard to impossible to prove the truth or falsehood of a hypothetical.

It's not "hard to impossible" to prove a hypothetical. It's called science, except they prefer the word hypothesis. But you actually have to do the studies, before you can get to that point. All they'd have to do is a large-scale study with vaccinated and unvaccinated controls. But they won't. Their claim is that it would be unethical, to not give vaccinations to babies in the interest of a clear and defined study, because they are certain the vaccinations are good and not bad. When it's pointed out that there are already tens of thousands of people voluntarily not vaccinating, and they could use them for the study... they just continue to say it wouldn't be ethical. That's the only response they've ever given.

They could test the hypothesis, and add to the body of science. They refuse. Why?