This book will give you insight as to how/why many people, are not yet convinced there is benefit in vaccinating, including an unbroken line of amongst the highest qualified of institutional scientists during this >200year debate who aren't referring to a conspiracy theory, rather than a lack of experimental evidence and situational opacity in Big Data World, being the reason for their disbelief.In light of the growingly-promising prospect of penalty-enforced mandatory vaccination, the author investigates precisely how we as a scientific culture have convinced ourselves that vaccination is beneficial. Featuring the most famous of 'successful' vaccine trials/experiments, and many more: well-controlled experimental trials that have sought to prove the benefit of vaccination, specifically the ones that have been most championed as indications of success. The most relied-upon evidence to support vaccination is analysed in this book, showing precisely where we are at. And of course, the author gives the culture its due regarding the most prestigious examples of claimed triumph such as polio and smallpox, whilst steering clear of any kind of conspiratorial thinking, sticking to the beaten path of institutional knowledge and historical events (diagnostic protocol changes), analysing the official track record. Peering into the phenomenon of 'disease genesis', and what we as a scientific culture have come to 'know' about it, and what we have theorised about it, including a look into how we have experimented to come up with-and test-these theories regarding the genesis of disease and the effectiveness of one of our cultures most favoured and controversial products, vaccines. With some things, we will probably never know whether we are right, big bang theory, for example. Everything that for all we know could exist yet doesn't: it could exist as far as we know, yet it's impossible if it doesn't, and it either does or doesn't. How might we record unseeable phenomena: i.e. those that we convince ourselves exist but which for all we know might not? One way to do this is to arrange circumstances in such a way that the effect of the phenomenon, if it exists, will most-definitely be pronounced and observable. This is a scientific approach. When it comes to the claimed life-saving effect of vaccination, what circumstances have we arranged, and what phenomena has been pronounced/observed? It seems not one controlled experiment can be found that has produced an observable lifesaving effect for vaccination (nor even a lowering of disease incidence). How, then, have we satisfied ourselves that such a lifesaving effect really does exist for vaccination? Since recently, in controlled experimental circumstances, we have demonstrated the ability to change the likelihood of certain disease processes occurring through vaccination compared to people who have received a saline-injection placebo control, we have also demonstrated that we can change the likelihood that a person will pass positive for the targeted-microbe, in a given amount of time during the trial (no longer than 2.5 years). We theorise that we can outright prevent disease and, since people die during disease, we seemed to have deduced from this experimental evidence that we can save lives with vaccination. We are yet to record, a series of properly controlled trials (experiments), in any species, measuring and reporting all disease incidence and mortality, and share the results. The closest we appear to have gotten with this, is included in Chapter 2 'Demonstrating the Benefit', vaccine vs saline, 1000+ people, in Japanese nursing homes, very well-controlled, in 2009, the BMJ published it: we get to see pneumonia disease incidence details, and mortality rates: the champion experiment of what I found to be the most referred-to pro-vaccination website, vaxopedia.org