Re: Nations requiring vaccines have worst infant mortality rates

Perhaps it should be noted that sciencebasedmedicine is largely a mainstream shill site that merely gives a bit of lip service from time to time to alternative healing or criticism of mainstream medicine in order to appear non-biased.  Bottom line is that if the science they pick and choose (and they have a history of naysaying studies which do not agree with conventional mainstream wisdom) does not accept something then it has to be false - which is no more of an absolute for mainstream drugs than it is for herbs, natural vitamins and minerals, cleansing, aromatherapy, accupuncture, healinig meridians and any other number of natural healing items.  Sure, better to be validated than not, but one should remember that it was mainstream science which told us that Vioxx, Bextra, Alleve, Fosamax, Avandia, Prozac, Paxil, Gardasil, et al were safe.

The author of the linked article, David Gorski, has written how much he admires the mainstream attack site Quackwatch and how he was flattered to be compared to the discredited founder of Quackwatch and other pharma shill sites Stephen Barrett.

I once had the honor of being voted "Tard of the Week" at SBM for daring suggest that Patrick Swayze might have been helped more by natural cancer fighters and by building up his body and natural immune system instead of following his doctor's advice to "starve out his cancer' and thus starve and weaken his body and immune system.  Swayze died not of his cancer, btw, but of wasting disease.

I am not arguing that vaccines have not had some success when it comes to guarding undernourished individuals, but given the choice of putting cocktails of known unnatural neuro-toxins, carcinogens, mutagens, etc. into human bodies versus giving them proper nourishment and immune building I would generally opt for the latter.  We haven't been vaccinated at my place in a long, long, long time - and that goes for our rescued dogs and cat too.