The information age offers us unprecedented opportunities to connect with each other, to express ourselves, to keep in touch with far flung family and friends and to communicate with our new found brothers and sisters half a world away.
Sadly, it also offers us the unprecedented opportunity to say anything and everything without integrity or even value. While many people do their best to be honest, there are always those who either intentionally deceive or who unwittingly spread rumors, misinformation or simply poor quality information.
Under such circumstances we must be grateful for the gift of communication, while also being vigilant about what we consider as legitimate, high quality information. Are our sources reliable? Are they diligent and honest? Are they reporting their own experiences and observations or are they just parroting what they've heard, or worse, actively attempting to deceive? Is what they have to say relevant?
In doing the research for this book over the past year I have made every opportunity to verify my sources and to test the quality of the information against the criteria listed above.
Much of the information presented is information coming from top scientists in their fields and is published in the professional, peer reviewed medical literature.
This alone does not insure its quality but it gives us a place to begin.
In evaluating the science presented I have read as much of it as I could. In some cases I have poured over the data and found that my understanding of the data did not match the written conclusions of the authors. For example one group of researchers found a fourteen fold increase in cases of asthma in children vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella over children not so vaccinated. In seeking to eliminate confounding factors they found one, number of pediatrician visits, that brought the risk ratio down to a ten fold increase. They used this finding to dismiss the obvious, massive statistical correlation as irrelevant in their conclusion. I disagree. A ten fold increased risk of asthma is significant. Furthermore, they did not fully explain the relevance of the confounder. I took this study as evidence that there is a statistical correlation between asthma incidence and the mmr vaccine, even though the authors themselves did not. The data was clear. The thinking of the authors was not.
This sort of shoddy thinking is common in published science, especially when trillions of dollars are at stake.
As with this study, I have done my best to understand the findings, the data, the reality itself. In many cases I have found the thoughts of the researchers to be quite helpful. For example in some of the studies I have reviewed on aluminum toxicity the authors have done an excellent job of explaining the existing research and clearly describing their findings, even allowing the findings to speak for themselves.
It is my hope not to indoctrinate you anew with my own thoughts, but to encourage you to do your own research, to seek the direct experience and the raw data of life and scientific observation and to engage in the thoughtful contemplation of that which feeds all true scientists, whether or not they have degrees, life.