Medicine is all about science - most of the time.

Medicines, treatments, even devices get put through a rigorous placebo-controlled, double-blind study process before they are declared fit for use in medicine. Anecdotal tales of how something worked for someone, no matter how much that someone is convinced a particular treatment, drug, or device worked for him, are considered unscientific, and therefore not sufficient evidence to support whatever it might be.

This is true, with the exception of one particular treatment, where anecdotal tales are the only evidence supporting that treatment, because there has never been a single placebo-controlled, double-blind study of that treatment, during the entire time it has been used in medicine.

Does that treatment work? It might. The problem is, as far as scientific evidence goes, that particular treatment has just as much support as prayers to Khonsu, holding a rabbit's foot, or sacrifices to Talona.

The treatment I'm talking about is vaccination. Regardless of what you may believe about its efficacy, the fact remains that it has never been subjected to what is considered the gold standard of proof in medicine, and any attempts to suggest that maybe it should be subjected to that standard result in the person making the suggestion being branded a kook, a radical, "antivax" (whatever that is), and various other terms that are synonyms for "crazy", and the person making the suggestion is informed that a placebo-controlled, double-blind study of vaccination is "unethical" - which makes it the only form of medical treatment to hold that status. In every other form of medical treatment, it is considered unethical to not perform such a study.

Why is it crazy to want a medicine that is being injected into your body - or your child's body - to have been put through the same degree of testing that your migraine medicine had to survive before being approved? For that matter, why is it crazy to want to know that your doctor is relying on something more than anecdotal tales when recommending that you receive a particular medication?

Is it really so bad to question the efficacy of a treatment that has never been subjected to a single placebo-controlled, double-blind study, especially when its supporters respond to questions about such a study with the same hostility that an Inquisitioner responds to questions about the legitimacy of the Church?

Think about it. If there is scientific evidence supporting the treatment, all those questions could be satisfied by simply producing the study. Responding to those questions as if one's religion had been blasphemed against does nothing to advance a claim of credibility.

For that matter, why is it that every other form of medical treatment demands placebo-controlled, double-blind studies to be considered ethical, yet suggesting the same standard for vaccination is considered unethical?