40% of Anti-Vaccine Group's Funding Came From Wealthy 'Alternative Health' Vendor (lmtonline.com) 110
An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post:
The nation's oldest anti-vaccine advocacy group often emphasizes that it is supported primarily by small donations and concerned parents, describing its founder as the leader of a "national, grass roots movement." But over the past decade a single donor has contributed more than $2.9 million to the National Vaccine Information Center, accounting for about 40 percent of the organization's funding, according to the most recent available tax records.
That donor, osteopathic physician Joseph Mercola, has amassed a fortune selling natural health products, court records show, including vitamin supplements, some of which he claims are alternatives to vaccines.
In recent years, the center has been at the forefront of a movement that has led some parents to forgo or delay immunizing their children against vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles. Health officials say falling vaccination rates contributed to the infectious virus sickening more than 1,200 people in the United States this year, the largest number in more than 25 years. Measles outbreaks are surging worldwide, including in Samoa -- where nearly 80 people have died since mid-October, the great majority of them young children and infants... The group claimed credit this year for helping to defeat legislation in a dozen states that would have made it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their children...
Mercola, whose claims about other products have drawn warnings from regulators, has also given at least $4 million to several groups that echo the anti-vaccine message. His net worth, derived largely from his network of private companies, has grown to "in excess of $100 million," he said in a 2017 affidavit.
In 2010 Mercola's site and the anti-vaccination group "launched a website that tracks vaccine-related legislation in every state. The site provides activists with detailed information, including how to sign up for public comment to support or oppose legislation in their state, where to park to attend a public hearing and what color T-shirt to wear to rallies..."
"In 2016, in response to a complaint from the Federal Trade Commission, Mercola refunded nearly $2.6 million to more than 1,300 people who bought tanning beds that he claimed could reduce the risk of skin cancer."
That donor, osteopathic physician Joseph Mercola, has amassed a fortune selling natural health products, court records show, including vitamin supplements, some of which he claims are alternatives to vaccines.
In recent years, the center has been at the forefront of a movement that has led some parents to forgo or delay immunizing their children against vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles. Health officials say falling vaccination rates contributed to the infectious virus sickening more than 1,200 people in the United States this year, the largest number in more than 25 years. Measles outbreaks are surging worldwide, including in Samoa -- where nearly 80 people have died since mid-October, the great majority of them young children and infants... The group claimed credit this year for helping to defeat legislation in a dozen states that would have made it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their children...
Mercola, whose claims about other products have drawn warnings from regulators, has also given at least $4 million to several groups that echo the anti-vaccine message. His net worth, derived largely from his network of private companies, has grown to "in excess of $100 million," he said in a 2017 affidavit.
In 2010 Mercola's site and the anti-vaccination group "launched a website that tracks vaccine-related legislation in every state. The site provides activists with detailed information, including how to sign up for public comment to support or oppose legislation in their state, where to park to attend a public hearing and what color T-shirt to wear to rallies..."
"In 2016, in response to a complaint from the Federal Trade Commission, Mercola refunded nearly $2.6 million to more than 1,300 people who bought tanning beds that he claimed could reduce the risk of skin cancer."
He should be sued ... (Score:5, Interesting)
by those who have suffered because people have not taken vaccinations. It seems to me that there is a direct causal link between his actions and people's illnesses. He has deliberately spread falsehoods to make profits.
Re:He should be sued ... (Score:5, Interesting)
by those who have suffered because people have not taken vaccinations.
It would be interesting to take a peek at the medical records of his own family.
My guess is that they have all been vaccinated.
Re:He should be sued ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What you don't seem to understand is there's only one for a lot of vaccines because vaccines are not profitable. Follow the money. https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... [theatlantic.com]
Re: He should be sued ... (Score:2)
It's like a lot of these thingsz "This is a bad idea ..... for other people". Abortion is the classic for this. Most clinics will tell you that have a whole roster of preachers wives, daughters of prominent conservatives eat . And the men know. But rationalise it like "god will understand. It was an affair, god disapproves of those so this was necessary" always carving personal ex emotions out for themselves but never willing to put it on the public record.
Re:He should be sued ... (Score:4, Interesting)
There’s also an issue in that some of these idiots generally believe in what they’re doing. It’s not too much different than other fields where professionals are genuinely trying to help people with the best information and scientific understanding available even though it might not be particularly good. Psychology is a pretty obvious example. We have medication that can help some people and know it works in a lot of cases, but some people it makes worse and right now we can’t always tell in advance.
If people want to believe in woo that’s their right. All manner of other ridiculous beliefs are passed around daily and some of those likely cause just as much or more harm to people. But for someone to decide that they can shut down those beliefs or make them illegal is to make them the arbiter of the truth and I’d not care to walk down that path. The cure to misinformation isn’t banning it, but to demonstrate why it’s wrong and provide evidence for better information.
Re: (Score:2)
Believing in woo is one thing. Advocating absolute quackery such as vitamin supplements being a valid alternative to vaccination should result in removal of the license to practice medicine.
But then, those who would take vaccination advice from an osteopath probably wouldn't care...
In other news, the linked article gives me a 451 error. First time I've seen one, though I did know there's more incorrect usage "we wanted to slurp your data, but your laws don't allow it" (see also latimes) than for its intende
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He should be sued ... (Score:2)
There's literally a vaccine court that only exists so companies can pay insignificant "go away" money to avoid pseudoscientific gibberish clogging the courts. It was a stupid move as the damn thing is now cited as proof of vaccine harms.
Re: (Score:1)
If he should be sued because he is a lying moron... what does that say about the people you vote for?
Oh right... I keep forgetting... lies that advance your cause are okay, which lies you hate are only the bad lies.
You can't save morons from themselves and every sick fucking moron like you that comes along to save idiots from themselves only get the non-idiots killed because now they are stuck with the laws your stupidity has created to combat their stupidity resulting in a far more sinister and fucking evi
Re: He should be sued ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I am sitting here finally recovering from a month of the flu, which started out with me too sick to get out of bed, with a violent, hacking cough that made it difficult to breathe, and with a brain that was too confused to think clearly. Now I'm finally able to think clearly enough to post on Slashdot again (admittedly a low bar).
At age 76, my immune system is weak (immune senescence), so the flu hits me pretty hard (just as it hits infants, people with cancer, and people taking drugs for auto-immune diseas
Re: (Score:2)
So I regularly get the flu vaccine, but (1) The clinic where I got it was out of the high-strength flu vaccine, so I got the regular version (2) About half of my neighbors didn't get vaccinated, out of laziness and anti-vax stupidity, so I didn't get the benefit of herd immunity (thanks, assholes).
I never get the flu vaccine. They guess the strains wrong about 50% of the time and it's worthless then anyway. ISTR reading about a new approach to flu vaccines that may eliminate the need for guesswork, if they bring one of those out then I'll bother to get it. Otherwise, no fuckin' thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, all the experts agree that in some years the vaccine is a better or worse match to the virus and in those years the effectiveness is better or worse, respectively.
However, the match of the virus doesn't matter when they do a randomized, controlled trial of a vaccine against a placebo or usual treatment, and in those studies 25% to 40% fewer subjects in the vaccine group get influenza than in the placebo/usual treatment group. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccin... [cdc.gov]
As I said, about 80,000 people a year die of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He should be sued ... (Score:2)
Actually even a slight mismatch can decrease severity by priming the immune system to catch flus generally. It won't stop it but it often will decrease severity
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe us oldies should avoid the great masses of population during this period as a way not to be bothered with the vaccine.
Sounds like a great plan, but I still have to shop, and I never seem to live where there is grocery delivery.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: He should be sued ... (Score:1)
Re:He should be sued ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because no solution is perfect, nor can it be. In any medical procedure there is a measure of risk that cannot be eliminated. The procedure is good when the likelihood of benefit significantly outweighs the risk of harm.
In order for the economic infrastructure of delivery of beneficial vaccines to exist, the business of making and distributing them must be economically viable. These people are not slaves, they can't work for free, so they need money! If they had to pay out ridiculous sums of it even for the tiny percentage of times that harm was caused by their vaccines, then their business would fold and we would have no vaccines at all!
That is why the individual must assume the risk. It is a paltry risk to the individual in return for a significant gain to the individual and to society as a whole. Also, in any case where the individual has a known condition that increases the risk of harm, the vaccine is not allowed (even in cases when it is otherwise legally required). And furthermore, in the extremely rare headlines-making cases where people died from improperly prepared vaccines, those responsible actually served jail time, so it isn't like there is zero accountability. A reasonable balance must be struck, and that is exactly what these laws aim to accomplish.
But you probably don't care about any of that, because you have a forgone conclusion about vaccines and will grasp at anything that you can spin as bad in order to justify that forgone conclusion.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Before vaccines are allowed on the market they have gone through extensive testing and vetting, blaming an odd mishap on the manufacturer does not fix the problem but instead only raises the cost for all.
Read the word 'odd', crossing the street is far more risky than accepting vaccination.
Re: (Score:3)
So why is that?
Because a very, very small percentage of the population, mainly people with immune system problems in the first place, do indeed have a problem when given vaccines. And would have even worse reaction to the full on actual disease(s) in question.
Does that mean all the people who do not have an immune system problem should risk death and disability?
Re: (Score:2)
They pay out only a small fraction of claims because only a small fraction are plausible. Even then, even less are likely actual vaccine caused damages but they offer some benefit of the doubt since there are some known cases of harm.
Keep in mind, even consuming uncontaminated bottled water has killed a few people.
Alternative medicine (Score:5, Informative)
By definition, alternative medicine is either medicine that has not been proved to work, or medicine that has been proved not to work.
We have a word for medicine that has been proved to work: "medicine."
You can learn more about this here [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
(emphasis mine)
Re: (Score:1)
Is it only the western medical establishment that gets to decide when something is called "medicine", and everything else is "alternative medicine"?
Re:Alternative medicine (Score:4, Informative)
There are lots of treatments that are effective, but we don't really know why. They're called "medicine" just like the ones where we have a pretty good handle on how they work. An example is lithium for major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. Another is glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis. It's not limited to drugs either. Exercise is an effective treatment for lots of things, and for many of them, particularly the psychological ones, we don't really know in detail why it works; alcoholics anonymous-like programs are effective for treatment of alcoholism, etc.
"Western medicine" is a bit of a misnomer. There's modern evidence-based medicine, and there's other stuff. "Medicine" that was practiced in the west in the past was just as hit and miss as what was practiced in the east. The big obvious stuff all cultures pretty much got right, and everything else they got pretty much random. Today you can get modern treatment in China, or in New York, or you can go to a practitioner of "alternative medicine" in either place. The western ones do often like to play off a western fascination with "eastern" mysticism though. Not so many alternative therapy clinics offering bleeding and electroshock therapy. Although they also tend to skip over eastern recommended urine drinking, ingesting mercury for immortality, and dung ointments.
Certainly anyone, regardless of their ethnicity can practice medical science, and most big clinical trials are an international undertaking. Also, just because a medical practitioner, eastern or western or whatever, recommends it, doesn't make it medicine. There are unfortunately still quite a few pre-evidence based practices you may run into in that hospital in New York that may be effective, may be ineffective, or may be harmful. We're still discovering all three kinds, and likely will be for a while yet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, because when I take an alternative route to get to my destination, I never end up there.
Re: Alternative medicine (Score:2)
If you consistently get there following that same route, it's not alternative. It's just a route.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the standard for proof is an expensive (billions) trial. Many potential treatments don't have proof because no one can make a profit proving they work since the treatment is not patentable.
Re: (Score:1)
Often, yes. But also often it means old remedies that do work but since they can't be patented nobody is willing to sink millions into proving it to the FDA. Or it's so dead simple, it's not worth specially packaging (like table sugar on minor infections).
Of course there are also things that are considered medicine where serious questions of efficacy have been raised.
That's not to say there aren't alternative medicines with little to no effect or even dangerous effects.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Aspirin is a bad example, it was grandfathered in so nobody had to do the expensive studies to get it on the market and it has been produced since before there was an FDA. The aspirin alternatives started life is patented prescription only medications. They continue to be produced because ther were already in production when the patent expired and since they were also made over the counter, the barrier for a new producer is lower.
Look at a more recent example, nicotine was found to be one of very few things
Too many people (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if you look at the population growth on the planet and what happened when medicine and vaccine was discovered and used. Perhaps the planet is better off us not using vaccines and thereby culling the population. But I don’t think that is their intention. :)
Re:Too many people (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're volunteering to be the first to be culled, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're volunteering to be the first to be culled, right?
Of course they're not. They're just like eugenicists, who believe that their 'purity of whatever' means that they don't need to. It's those filthy plebs and degenerates that need to go first, and of course the world will be better off without them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not signing up to be culled. But I don't have any kids either and no intent to ever have any, so in a way I am doing my part.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm also doing my part. Then again, this is Slashdot, where most readers are doing their part.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is awesome! At 7.8 billion [worldometers.info] and rising by over 100,000 a day, the world is grossly overpopulated. Also, the carbon footprint of a child is through the roof! [independent.co.uk]
It is high time humanity outgrew the anachronistic cultural values that emphasize the importance of breeding. In an earlier day, keeping the species going was hard, and we really needed kids. Today, the exact opposite problem faces us. If we are to survive as a species, for the long term, we need to significantly reduce our birth rate.
So, th
Re: (Score:2)
The world is just grossly unoptimized.
Re: (Score:2)
He's saying there's too many motherfuckers on the planet now and we need some elbow room.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're volunteering to be the first to be culled, right?
No need. Anti-vaxxers have already volunteered their kids.
Re: (Score:2)
"Culling the population" is too much of a violation of our common, foundational, moral values.
Instead, I offer up the ideology of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [vhemt.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps the planet is better off with us not using vaccines ...
FTFY
Sure. We can start with the sick and weak. Later we can eliminate the mentally handicapped and people with deformities.
When we run out of those people and still need to cull then we can move on to people who write things like "I could of done that" and "I could care less."
Eventually we'll get to people who can't write grammatically correct sentences. (Gee I hope I haven't made any grammar mistakes in this post.)
Re: (Score:3)
If you actually look at population growth, you find that sophisticated health care and high levels of population health are predictors of low growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you look at the population growth on the planet and what happened when medicine and vaccine was discovered and used.
In most of the world people have realized they don't actually need to raise five kids to have someone take care of them in their old ago, two will do and if they happen to die by accident social institutions can step in meaning a life insurance policy is a better investment than raising another two-three kids just for backup. If you take away Africa we're roughly at replacement rates already and I doubt African women have a much higher passion for dirty diapers and screaming toddlers than the rest. For them
Birth Rates are plummeting (Score:2)
There's a few things going on here:
1. Most women can't have more than 2 kids safely. Yes, there's the occasional "Clown Car" but most stop at two for medical reasons. Nearly all stop at 3.
2. Most women are content with 2, and most men are content with 1 or 0 (though we often won't admit the 0 since it's a major taboo).
3. Religion is on the down swing pretty much everywhere exce
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but Bees american stupid too.
So much bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
I've read a few articles on his site, it's so full of bullshit and half-truths. I'm not sure if this guy is a con or if he actually believes the shit he says. Though in general there's so much bullshit health information on the internet period, big offenders include naturalnews, mother earth news, and nutritionfacts.org (the latter basing most of his crap on widely debunked "the China study".)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting to see this from someone I have marked as a science denier using the friend/foe system. I don't have any record or memory of why I marked you in particular as such, but climate conspiracy ideology is the most common form of science denial I run across on Slashdot. So, do you yourself have any disagreements with "mainstream science" that could also benefit from such scientific thinking?
Re: So much bullshit (Score:3)
Well I'm not an environmentalist, but I'm somewhat vocal in support of genetically modified food, and often point out the cognitive dissonance among self proclaimed environmentalists who try to tell you how good organic food is while conveniently ignoring just how incredibly wasteful it is (not to mention not actually providing a nutritional benefit) both in terms of landmass (read: deforestation) and additional water required. GMO, which they often attack, has good promise of bringing the total opposite.
I
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't been convinced that man is the sole cause of climate change.
Ah so that was it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'm not an environmentalist, but I'm somewhat vocal in support of genetically modified food, and often point out the cognitive dissonance among self proclaimed environmentalists who try to tell you how good organic food is while conveniently ignoring just how incredibly wasteful it is
That's because you know fuck-all about organic farming, which was conceived by those who named it (poorly, I'll admit) as a circular system. Shit needs to go back to fields. We can use systems like AIWPS to do that much more efficiently (in terms of power consumption, if not land area use).
Zero-tilth organic farming, not bullshit USDA organic but actual organic farming, is much more efficient and actually produces higher yields per acre than farming monocultures. It does take more human labor, but a) there'
Re: So much bullshit (Score:2)
The most commonly accepted definition of organic farming means, in a nutshell, no synthetic materials can be used. You're talking about regenerative agriculture, not organic.
Re: (Score:2)
The most commonly accepted definition of organic farming means, in a nutshell, no synthetic materials can be used. You're talking about regenerative agriculture, not organic.
O RLY [wikipedia.org]?
Further [wikipedia.org],
Re: So much bullshit (Score:2)
No, "big ag", as it were, is definitely behind organic. Believe me, they make a killing on it. Any big name you can think of, Kellogg's, general Mills, Pepsi, conagra, Kraft, and many others, you name it, all sell organic food lines. Because we have a legal definition of organic, it doesn't matter who coined the term. If it were something like communism that has no legal standard, then sure, you can go with the guy who coined that. Bash USDA organic if you want, I don't care, but they set the legal standard
Re: (Score:2)
Big Ag is behind put-a-sticker-on-it "organic", which just means a list of stuff they can or can't use. Not actual organic farming. Fuck the legal definition twice.
Re: So much bullshit (Score:2)
I agree, fuck it, because it has legitimized snake oil. Kosher labels deserve more recognition to be honest, because at least they don't try to hide the fact that it's not based on any kind of science. Nonetheless, when somebody says organic, this is what they're referring to in the English lexicon. You may as well go around flashing a swastika because it peace to Buddhists, and then get pissed of when people give you the finger, because that's exactly what your doing right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Every one seems to have forgotten this. People screaming 'science' are relying on faith most of the time.
Implied lying (Score:2)
It's interesting how the article is worded. Two things are implied to be lies:
"supported primarily by small donations and concerned parents,"
"founder as the leader of a "national, grass roots movement.""
100-40=60, and 60% is more than 40%. Therefore, the first statement isn't a lie.
Joseph Mercola is not the founder, and the organization existed before he started contributing to it. The founder is listed as Barbara Loe Fisher, and there is no real detail on how "grass roots" the organization is.
Think about t
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to be that picky about the article, then you should not make your own false implications.
The article does not imply that the first claim is false. Instead, it provides context about the claim, which show that the claim is definitely misleading.
Basically, you imputed claims that the article did not make, then said those claims are false. That's a strawman argument.
Think about this when reading other politically-motivated articles. THey may contain strawman arguments.
Re: Implied lying (Score:4, Informative)
It's interesting how the article is worded. Two things are implied to be lies:
No, they're not. I don't know why you would think that they are. When I read the article it was quite obvious to me that what they were saying was:
"these slimy cunts make the claim that they're mainly funded by small donors, which is technically true ... but is incredibly deceptive given that 40% of their funding comes from a single asshole multi-millionaire who built a business empire selling snake oil".
Re:Lots of hot comments here (Score:4, Interesting)
Then on the front page I see this; "Witnessing The Vaccine Injury Epidemic".
The site is full of such drivel, I rest my case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's time to criminalize lying about science (Score:2)
Believing that the Earth is flat or only 6,000 years old may contradict long-settled science, but nobody gets hurt.
On the other hand, lying about science in a situation that threatens public health and safety should be a criminal offense. People like Joseph Mercola and Bernard Seltz should be locked up and be be stripped of the assets they use to influence others into lethal behavior.
Is this illegal? (Score:2)
Re:Is this illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes? [cornell.edu]
Come on slashdot, link the original source! (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on slashdot - this is warmed-over news and you're publishing a source that cannot even be read in Europe. Credit the original source, not an intermediary!
The actual Washington Post article from October 2019: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Come on slashdot - this is warmed-over news and you're publishing a source that cannot even be read in Europe. Credit the original source, not an intermediary!
The actual Washington Post article
You can get around the geofence by setting your VPN to tell the site that you're in the virtual USA. Your link, on the other hand, slams a paywall block into our faces.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a handy button on the left that says "browse for free".
Or you can pay up... like you're suggesting I pay up for a VPN. Your VPN idea is just another paywall.
It is known (Score:2)
As Dr Edzard Ernst [edzardernst.com]and many others who have the patience to study alt-med articles have found, alt-med providers and "influencers" always go hand in hand with the food supplements industry.
Alt-med works at eroding public confidence in mainstream medicine (particularly pharmaceutical companies), while supplement sellers have expertise in making things that fall just short of being classified and regulated as pharmaceutical.
This is one thing that I'd sure like not to see imported from the USA. Sadly, it take
Business as usual (Score:1)
Big tobacco did the same thing for years, so did the sugar industry, but come on I am waiting for comments about how this is how a capitalist system should work and it is all fine.
The evil some people commit... (Score:2)
... is absolutely staggering. And this is apparently even legal. Of course, anybody sane has long since noticed that there is no connection between right/wrong and "the law".
Who and what is really behind all this? (Score:2)
Santa's statin is Satin's asshole (Score:2)
Dr. Mercola Interviews Doug McGuff about High Intensity Exercise [youtube.com] — uploaded 9 December 2011
Around 35:30:
McGuff: If we mess up, people die. And also—
Mercola: —especially in your job as an emergency room physician, it's probably one of the few legitimate uses of the traditional medical model, from my view.
McGuff: Yes, and to some extent emergency physicians—and all physicians—not only are you held accountable for the stuff that you do and the patient can die, you can do the very
Re: (Score:2)
My fingers somehow forgot that Satan is spelled with two As. This has never happened before. I must be cursed today.
Another statistic (Score:2)
Rule #1. Always Follow the Money (Score:2)
Rule #1. Always Follow the Money
Rule #2. Always Follow the Money
Million with an M? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame your parents chose to have you vaccinated. Because watching you die of polio would be a huge win for society. There's never enough entertainment. You promote the death of innocent people, and there is not any pain you could feel that would in any way atone for the guilt of your disgusting descent into stupidity. We can only hope that the next mass shooting includes you as a victim. Hopefully while your loved ones are watching.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well in the statistics about 1 out of 10 Adverse events are reported. So you could say the number of individuals who are injured are much higher.
I have a friend who knew someone who got the flu vaccine. After that vaccine his health started to deteriorate and by the end of the month he was dead. Do you think doctors will label that death or have any way of finding out the vaccine caused that death? Most likely not.
I have a niece who was vaccinated and she became extremely lethargic. Now she's having sen
Re: (Score:2)
"I have a friend who knew someone who got the flu vaccine."
There's your problem. Weird anecdotal thing being presented as fact. Not you, not even your friend, but someone who your friend supposedly knows, when in actuality someone else told your friend about it.
I once caught a cold after getting a flu shot. And everyone around me kept saying "see, see, that shot caused that!'.
The only thing the flu shot may have caused is me getting exposed to the cold virus in a hospital when I got it.
Really Slashdot? (Score:1)
Big Pharma shells out $20B in advertising a year:
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
Vaccines aren't really tech news. Secondly Vaccines are a huge cash cow of Big Pharma. If anything happens from a vaccine your ridiculed and cannot sue.
Golly... (Score:1)
And the CDC gets 40% of its budget from vaccines (Score:1)
Bloomberg supplied 36% of anti-gun group budget (Score:1)