Green Aura wrote:And therein lies the problem - which expert do you listen to? An "expert" regularly gets wheeled out for any argument and they can't possibly all be right. The general public don't have the scientific training or critical analysis skills to decide who is more believable.The Riff-Raff Element wrote:They generally have no interest in listening to actual experts
Much scientific research is limited by time/politics/financial constraints or just plain who's paying for it.
My daughter had all her vaccines, despite developing asthma within days of her very first injection. Related? Who's to know - the medical and pharmaceutical industries will never tell us.
I'm not sure I would make the same decision again.
as i said before:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
meaning: after this therefor because of this
when people automatically make a connection between A and B, believing that A was the cause of B purly because B happened after A, when infact thay are unrelated.
the fact that your daughter developed asthma after her vaccine is mearly a coincedance.
asthma is a genetic illness, you cannot contract it from a vaccine.
it would have developed sooner or later, wither she had the vaccine or not.
in relation to what 'expert' should we, the gereral public, be listening too, i urge you all to read the book 'bad science' by doctor ben goldacre. in the book he clearly explains how to spot psudoscience and quacks so you can learn to fillter out all the drivvel from the real science.