Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
The problem is in today's world, you can't always trust what the studies show, because so much of the research is paid for by companies whom have profits to protect. Seriously read some of the side effects from a random medication that is advertised during the 6:00 news. Half the side effects of the shit they try to push is worse than what you are treating.
Don't forget there was a time when scientist were saying cigarettes were healthy. Obviously paid scientist, but if you look at what goes on today most drug companies have university researchers on their payrolls. Most research in this country that isn't don't by the private sector is done by universities. Now the pharma companies have the university researchers in their pockets, whom can you trust?
I'm not against vaccinations but there are some that are very sketchy and might be linked to other problems and everything isn't always black & white.
|
Sure, I understand that there's monied interests involved, but there's not some big conspiracy out there. The crap behind cigarettes came out because people got tired of all the bullshit(in all honesty, I know less than nothing about the history / details surrounding that particular topic).
Everyone who I ever see express anti-vax views fundamentally just don't understand how science, or academia for that matter, works. If a scientist, or particular lab, were to find a more effective way to do a flu vaccine(example) that has zero side effects for any person, and this could be demonstrated repeatedly through rigorous clinical trials, they'd change the world and get tons of notoriety from their peers and the world. On the other hand, when some quack gets paid by lawyers to do a fake study, then publishes it, then gets his licensing revoked and shunned by the academic community, conspiracy nut jobs jump up and down supporting him because "they" and "the man" and whatever other whacko idea they can think up.
There's being skeptical, and there's being paranoid.