Professional Misconduct by NAM Committee on Food Allergy - (Dec/17/2016 )

Doctors inject vaccines in huge amounts to babies since 1960', in those times concentrations of todays "horrible substances in vaccines" were much higher (timerosal, aluminium salts...), the purification methods are better than they were

 

No, not always. Aluminum is mainly needed only in newer "sub-unit" vaccines. And aluminum biases for allergy.

"O’Brien et al. <13> measured 7.4 mcg/ml of ovalbumin in influenza vaccines in 1967. Goldis et al. <14> measured as much as 38.3 mcg/ml in influenza vaccines as recently as 2008. "

https://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-foodallergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-2329-6631-1000137.pdf

How vaccine safety science too can be affected by psychological effects ...

Researchers who find results suggesting vaccines are safe, do not check their work for errors.

If they find a vaccine safety problem, they look for errors or reason to explain them away. Thus perpetuating vaccine safety problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

Millikan's experiment as an example of psychological effects in scientific methodology

See also: Confirmation bias § In science

In a commencement address given at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1974 (and reprinted in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! in 1985 as well as in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out in 1999), physicist Richard Feynman noted:

 

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

 

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that ...<10><11>