If a large number of doctors and scientists (which appears to be the case) are reporting that they think vaccines may be responsible for significant instances of nasty complications and side-effects, isn't the primary responsibility of the media to report on those findings and concerns? Or could it be that only scientists and doctors on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies (like the CDC and FDA) have all the answers and, therefore, only their findings and conclusions are worthy of being covered by mainstream media?
The well-funded pro-vaccine cartels claim that only Internet health sites and a few malcontents in the scientific community have any objection to or concerns about vaccines; they furthermore claim that these objections can only be found on the WEB or the Internet (or perhaps in smaller magazines and newspapers). Does this mean that information found on the Internet is always unreliable and untrustworthy; or can we consider the other possibility: that Internet health information sites may not be as up-for-sale as the mainstream media?
If a well-respected doctor, for example, after doing extensive research (some of it hinging on what she sees in her own practice) wants to publish her findings in a mainstream media but can't find any that will publish the results, what is that doctor supposed to do? Would it really surprise anyone to know that mainstream media may arbitrarily decide what they want to publish or not publish on their publications based, not necessarily on whether good science is being used, but whether the decision to publish something their sponsors may dislike might affect their financial bottom line?
For the record, mainstream media publications are money-making enterprises, including many so-called "scientific journals." In fact, most (if not all) heavily depend on the funds they receive from advertisers and sponsors.
If these advertisers (especially the very wealthy pharmaceutical industry) espoused a particular agenda (that, say, nothing may be published which attacks or even questions vaccine safety and efficacy), would mainstream media publications ignore such an agenda or would they (naturally interested in keeping an eye on what matters most in the business world: profits!) just obey their masters?
Just asking the question may offend some people but is the pharmaceutical industry different than, say, the petroleum industry or most other major industries? At the end of the day, is Forbes's magazine or the New York Times (etc.) more interested in defending scientific integrity or in preserving their profit margins?
Contrary to What Mainstream Media is Reporting, Many Doctors/Scientists Are Wary of Vaccines!
Read on to Page 3