Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Science knows best.
|
Even science is biased though, on both sides.
To say that the CDC does not have an interest in denying a small side effect of a vaccine would be clearly false. They have a mandate to eradicate disease, and if they said that the vaccine was even a little bit unsafe, it would cause huge numbers of children to go unvaccinated and it could potentially wipe out half a generation of kids.
For a minute, assume vaccines cause autism in a small, small % of kids, the CDC would rather have that then 100million dead kids. I am not saying those numbers are correct since I have no idea what the end result would be but my point is the vaccine is best for society as a whole, and the CDC is doing what it thinks is best for society by promoting and encouraging research that supports that position.
This is the same logic that assumes that Wakefield's findings were not relevant because he was financially supported by the anti-vaccine people. You don't pay for a study that puts you out of business.
Point is, assuming one is 100% correct and the other is 100% wrong based on science is putting far more trust in the people writting that report than I am willing to do. A report can be written several different ways with the same data, just need to spin it right.
Just so it is clear, I am in support of immunization since the benefits outweigh the risks.