Well, the only way to find the truth is to follow the money. If scientists and doctors have a vested interest in pushing an agenda, how are we supposed to believe anything they say? Only scientists with nothing to gain financially and no conflicts of interest would be worth listening to, right?
Let’s consider this practically by comparing two vaccine studies with opposite findings.
The first study was published in 2002 in the journal Pediatrics, and the lead author was Paul A. Offit, a pediatrician who specializes in infectious diseases, and is an expert on vaccines, immunology and virology. Offit’s study set out to allay parents’ fears that multiple vaccines might overwhelm or weaken their children’s immune systems.
In the study’s summary the authors assured parents, “Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or ‘use up’ the immune system. On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment.” The authors also asserted that, “[E]ach infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time.” [Emphasis added]
The problem with this argument is that it completely misses the concern over toxic ingredients added to vaccines such as aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, squalene and other chemicals that pose severe neurological risks. Surely Dr. Offit doesn't believe a child can be injected with 10,000 doses of aluminum and mercury without any negative side effects... does he?
A visit to Amazon.com reveals that Offit has been the author or co-author of no less than eight books, all of which “prove” why vaccines are a great idea. Then there’s the fact that Offit is the co-creator (and patent holder) of the RotaTeq vaccine which supposedly protects against rotavirus. And what about the hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding that the professor received for 2008’s “Every child by two” program? Professor Offit certainly has a vested interest in insisting that vaccines are safe. [RELATED: Discover the truth at Vaccines.news]
Let’s consider the second study. Published recently in the Journal of Translational Science, this study had Professor Anthony R. Mawson as lead author. Dr. Mawson, too, has an impressive list of credentials, and is the author of over 50 published studies. After assessing the health outcomes and neurodevelopmental diseases of over 660 American children, the research team found that while vaccinated children exhibited slightly better protection against chicken pox and whooping cough, but not other viruses, as they “were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with other infections, allergies, and other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) like autism and ADHD.”
How much more likely? Vaccinated children were 4.2 times more likely to develop autism, at 4.2 times higher risk of an ADHD diagnosis, had 5.2 times the risk of learning disabilities, were 2.9 times more likely to have eczema, and were a shocking 30 times more likely to have allergic rhinitis!
Now, a careful Amazon.com search will reveal that Professor Mawson has written no pro- or anti-vaccine books. He has no vested interest that I could establish in trying to prove that vaccines are harmful. He’s just a highly-respected scientist who did the study and faithfully recorded the results.
So, who do you believe? The guy who’s built a lucrative and multi-faceted career on doggedly insisting that vaccines are safe? Or the respected scientist who has no hidden agenda and is simply reporting his findings?
Find more coverage of biased vaccine-pushing journalists at VaccineHolocaust.org.