Can anything ever be proven?

If you asked any competent statistician who was intellectually honest, he/she would say that there
is no such thing as a level of coincidence so high that it could not possibly be simply that -coincidence.

However, if you asked any competent statistician for an opinion whether, say, a coin flipped
20 times and always coming up "heads" was a coincidence, they would say something to the effect
that they would "reject the null hypothesis" that the coin was fair, which would be a statistician's way
of saying "No way."  It is more a matter of philosophical discipline to acknowledge the small
potential for fallibility even in extreme cases, not at statement concerning the practical realities.

With a question as politically volatile as covert genocide by way of intentionally contaminated vaccines,
it is an open question as to whether even a competent statistician's opinion would be given honestly
and not colored by emotions and assumptions that influence practically all human beings.

As noted in the statistical analysis on this website, the question has been posed to professors in
the field of statistics who responded affirmatively that the methodology and computations are
correct when implicating the experimental vaccines in infecting the gay men.

A microbiologist at Los Alamos labs, who for a time discussed AIDS origin with myself and
and other theorists, once opined blandly that "I do not think that you can prove anything with
statistics."     That is a good example of an opinion that is less than honest, because any educated
professional in a responsible position ought to know better than to make such a superficial and
naive remark.   Statistics are primary tool that scientists must use to determine the safety or the
risks of everything from new drugs to food additives.   This same microbiologist also once
remarked "Don't worry, I am not working the the CIA.", but it did become very clear over
time, in spite of his pleasant demeanor, that he had a singular goal of talking us out of our
provocative theories with any bland, Devil's Advocate lines that he might be able to sell us.

Statistics can be used to deceive, but only with cooperation of gullible targets who would allow
the tool to be misused.  Used properly, the tool itself is one of the best means for shining a light
in what would otherwise be darkness.

In the opinion of the author, the methodology and the math are beyond serious argument.  Not that
there will not be arguments, but that the arguments will not be serious or even sincere.

The data are confirmed with one of the original principals, and constitute the best that are available.

None of the beliefs that you may hold on any topic carry "the authority of God", particularly
since there is not likely even a "God" that carries such authority.

Even if there existed an infallible God, since you personally are not that God, any such infallibility
would be made moot by virtue of your own fallibility. 

Proof positive in that sense is an impossibility for any and all beliefs.
But this lack of absolutism does not mean that you cannot reach your own verdict.

When a contention is representing the best conclusion that can be drawn from the best of the data
that are available, it becomes obligatory for anyone who purports to claim the mantle of rationality
or science to acknowledge that conclusion as the tentative operating assumption, regardless of the
political or emotional implications, until such time as any better data presents itself.