Who Says All Doctors Endorse Vaccines?

One of the things those of us of who work in the scientific world have to admit is that controversy and differences of opinion are unavoidable. As a general rule, different people have different perspectives about everything--even about things that one would think are self-evident, clear or supposedly "indisputable."

Of course, it's understood that the social sciences aren't meant to impart one-size-fits-all compartments and truths. Differences of opinion are not only accepted, they are expected. In some cases, differences of opinion complement each other, sometimes leading to discoveries that advance (as opposed to hinder) progress.

In psychology/psychiatry, for example, mental illness may be approached from totally different angles (i.e. psychotherapy and medication); it's not that one treatment methodology is right and the other is wrong but the fact that, sometimes, a problem may be approached using more than one tool or school of thought.

Isn't Science Supposed to Be Different?

When it comes to more concrete areas of science (physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.), however, it is often thought that facts are not as elusive or open to interpretation. The fact that aluminum, for example, is much lighter than lead is not a matter of opinion; nor is it something that calls for different points of view.

While most of the concepts, materials and laws of science reside in equally clear and well-established parameters, there are, nevertheless, things that do not enjoy such black-and-white and calculable/well-established properties. In fact, it can be said that science, while it may heavily rely on factuality, is not completely about facts and figures; it too, like the social sciences, sometimes leaves room for interpretation.

The pathogenicity or toxicity of some substances and phenomena to human beings are glaring examples. Ionic radiation, for example, can impart disease, but often not in predictable ways. Enough exposure can lead to sure death--that much can be said. In lower dosages, however, it can apparently be tolerated for long periods of time. In some people, such low dosages may be enough to lead to cancer (or some other form of disease) but, again, every human being may possess a different tolerance capacity.

Yet another example is the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Are vaccines as safe and efficacious as the mainstream media in the US claims? The fact that just about every major magazine, newspaper and health organization/agency's website seems unable to find any glaring problems/deficiencies with vaccines is suspicious enough, when you consider that many independent scientists and doctors continue to allude to potential problems.

Are all these doctors and scientists just imparting false information or is it possible that the mainstream media is only voicing what those who peddle vaccine and profit from them want them to say?

To put it more bluntly, is this a glaring case of the American mainstream media simply being up for sale, reporting not on what science says but what they are being paid to say?

Shouldn't Journalists Be Reporting The News--Not Creating It?

Read on to Page 2