Mercola's research is often based on epidemiological studies. Here's why (and it's not because Mercola's a quack)!
The gold standard of medical research is a placebo controlled double blind cross over trial. This is not possible to effect when studying factors such as nutrition, because people have to eat and it would be unethical to have people eat in such a way that to prove a hypothesis, which has a basis for benefit or detriment, could cause harm. Evidence is largely drawn from observational, epidemiological studies. As a qualitative approach to observation of influences in a real environment, these do not provide a rigourous measure of a single variable?s cause and effect. A parachute has never had a double blind cross over trial (it would be unethical to do one), but most people would recognise a trend in deciding whether to use one.
The same principles can be applied to proving a vaccine response, you cannot isolate all the factors which could cause an underlying disorder, you can only look at trends and take a pragmatic approach. As the video says "There is no placebo controlled trial of the health outcomes of vaccinated children versus the health outcomes of unvaccinated children". Why not? Science is continually evolving, so why do so many scientific principles become set in stone? Nothing is ever proven beyond ALL doubt, only reasonable doubt. We can only draw conclusions from data, not facts. For many people (myself included 10 years ago) I felt the medical profession were more able to draw those conclusions). Now I know, that while they may be more qualified to do so, their agenda is entirely different to mine (theirs is population based, mine is individual) and none of them are accountable to me in years to come if a link between vaccines long term consequences is made apparent. Have they read the data and the research? Most are just toeing the party line. So I do my own research and make my own mind up.
This video is about choices. It is not anti-vaccine. Medicine's primary premises are "do no harm" and "informed consent". I have given my children plenty of vaccines, but I have never given "INFORMED consent". I have no idea if we are causing harm on an individual level (acute or chronic - to appear later in life). As long as we are informed we can decide whichever way we want to, but the problem is we're not informed, we're given the party line. The mainstream propeganda?
If we follow America (as we do in alot of things) we will not be allowed to decide and frankly, how many of us are truly choosing, without duress from doctors, practice nurses, from society and the views of people who are minds are closed to assimilating all the information available.