I don't believe vaccines are by definition all bad. And I am sure they can be harmful with its side-effects. Cause things like autism and even death. However, if we all were to stop using (certain) vaccines it could cause some diseases to spread quickly. If a few don't get vaccinated they get protected by others that have. So it might be necessary. Doesn't mean the negative sides need to be exposed more, I totally agree with you on that. I know how the pharma industry works and it's a nasty business..
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm glad you agree that the information on all sides needs to be spoken about and people need to be able to make an informed decision.
For example, I went through measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox myself as a child, as did all the other children, and I never heard of anyone having any problems with them. So I'm not a bit scared of the idea of my children having those normal childhood illnesses. But fear sells vaccines, so they pretend that measles is so deadly and horrible, in order to get you to buy their vaccines.
Thank-you for your comment.
Fear has always been one of the greatest tools to sell something to the public. Besides, It's always best to look things from both sides, though too less people do so..
Beware of subjects that seem to have only two sides. The false dilemma is one of the most overused tools for the manipulation of the people. When I'm presented with two options the first thing I do is look for the possibilities that are not included.
There are superior technologies that are skipped over in favor of the large moneyed interests that are integral to the corruption of regulatory capture.
That I agree 100% on
Other countries do this differently. There are homeopathic vaccines (India) and Singapore uses different companies, different preparations, and has a MUCH smaller list of required vaccines. IN-ter-est-ing, huh?
Kin-da ^^
thank-you @baah !
As I am not a scientist I can't confirm how effective vaccines are. All I can do is take the assumption that the majority of scientists that say it works, are correct. That said, there still is a lot of corruption at hand by the shareholders, that rather surpress things coming out being a thread to their profits and credibility of the company. Yes, I do believe most scientists are honest, just not always the ones sponsoring them.
My point is. Scientists often get financed by the corporations promoting something. Seeing as how a big part of the pharma industry is profit driven, it seems logical to me to assume they would sponsor positive research for them to sell the product. If they were to put money in research like for example a possible cause of autism by vaccines, it wouldn't do them much good. So scientist won't have the chance to do research into these specific fields, cause there is no funds going into its research.