padib said:
hsrob said:
Yet the original decision was based largely on the initial fraudulent research. They also site the interaction with his particular genetic mutation, I'm curious what that might be and whether that alone might explain his reaction to the vaccine.
Again, not stating that there are no adverse reactions to vaccines, there are, I've seen them first hand, but a single court decision still does nothing to counteract the existing weight of evidence, there's no new data presented here.
You have pitched this as a 'think twice before vaccinating your kids" piece, rather than what it is, a single unfortunate case where a court has ruled that a young child has probably had an unfortunate reaction to a vaccine.
|
I meant to pitch it more as a "Be attentive to what the media is bombarding you with", and also pointed out to the mad amount of money that pharmaceuticals are reaping from this mediatic blitz.
|
Here's the funny part though; the pharmaceutical companies would actually make more money if nobody vaccinated; it's a lot more profitable to treat a chronically ill population than to just immunize everyone. Unfortunately for them, the genie's out of the bottle, so if they don't make and sell the vaccines, someone else will, and they still wouldn't get to profit off a society crippled by endemic illness.
