I have seen many people who deny facts and it is interesting to guess what their motivations are. I am, however, not very impressed with the statement from the

I have seen many people who deny facts and it is interesting to guess what their motivations are. I am, however, not very impressed with the statement from the medical science that the authors use as "a fact". Facts from the medical science that are debated have changed into lies: did you hear about the fact that cholesterol is bad for your health and one should eat eggs with moderation ? That fact is now a lie: (see http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/19/health/dietary-guidelines/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/19/health/dietary-guidelines/) and the Dietary Guidelines now contain "Cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption". Another example where yesterday's truth is today's lie: there are many scientific reports that say that the herbicide Roundup is safe, but the court in California recently decided that a warning must be put on the Roundup package: "THIS MAY CAUSE CANCER". For decades the truth was "Roundup is safe". In 2016 the new truth is "Roundup causes cancer". The new research is so overwhelming that the old research funded by the producer of Roundup is no longer considered truthful and that research from the producer did not convince the court. I think that the authors walk on a slippery road when they state that vaccinations are good and not hazardous since they ignore the fact that there is considerable debate about the subject and do not look at the arguments of those who are opposed. Yes there is scientific research that says that a vaccine given at birth is safe because the researchers observed babies for four days and there were no adverse reactions. Other scientific studies follow children just for a maximum of 90 days. One who argues that four days is not enough and labels the report 'unscientific' has a good point. One who shows that autism is linked to vaccinations does not present hard evidence but raises a valid point of attention. What is the truth? safe or unsafe? Currently it is debated. Most likely there will not be hard evidence soon about unsafety because nobody funds research for this. There is also an other argument to make: if we find autism a terrible disease that must be avoided at all costs, and there are mathematical indications that vaccines are not safe, and there is scientific research that says that they are safe but do not investigate the relationship between vaccines and autism, and there is no scientific research that shows that vaccines do not cause autism, then why do many persons accept "vaccines are safe" as a truth ? I suggest that the authors write a new book with a title like "What happens to people when that facts and truths that they believe in are no longer true ?" and do not make the mistake to believe everything that others say but to critically verify it.