Compared to the what the modern healthcare industry is doing, my educating about mercury poisoning is revolutionary.
We had great interactions with everyone, even those who believe in "science". At the Mercury 101, a lady picked up one of my anti-vaccine postcards.
Lady: “I don’t believe in this. I believe in vaccines.“
Mercury Al: “What do you believe about them?”
Lady: She puts down card. “I’m not getting into this with you. I believe in science.”
Mercury Al: “There is absolutely science at work with vaccines. You are right about that. However, for you to claim we have scientific answers on the efficacy of vaccines, and not just statistical data, would mean that we would have to be able to scientifically test for results. However, to scientifically test and then study the results, we must control all of the variables, and to control all of the variables, we would have to do it in a lab. There are just too many variables in the outside world to scientifically test a vaccine. We don’t know whether little Johnny, who plays with lead painted toys, lead bb gun pellets, puts his fingers in his mouth after painting with cadmium red paint, plays in a garage containing 3 broken CFL (mercury) light bulbs, will have a debilitating autoimmune reaction if we shoot him up with a childhood vaccine containing an aluminum adjuvant. How can we possible test if the vaccine works? We don’t know when, or how he will contact and perhaps contract a virus. Little Johnny may already have compromised immunity, from perhaps, too many vaccines. What is the cut off number for vaccines, when ‘scientifically’ we would determine it is too dangerous, that a human body has had too many compromised immunological incidents, that it will succumb on some level to multiple poisonings?
The answer is we do not scientifically know the results. Therefore, vaccine studies should be referred to as statistical studies, and never referenced as scientific studies.