Re: Nations requiring vaccines have worst infant mortality rates

Whether you believe the website is biased or not, does not change the data, and the references given are very easily verified, unlike many alternative medicine sites, that are equally as biased, but lack any peer reviewed or verifiable evidence to many of the theories they espouse.

This is why it is so important to do research off the internet. I have found the same data, and studies, at my local library, and from university libraries, as well as independent researchers themselves.

Hopefully, before people take your word for SBM being a "shill" site and close their mind to anything that does not suit your and their personal prejudice. I hope they will look at the actual article, and the information contained in the article, and do some independent research for themselves.

This is exactly what I and others did, when we saw the article posted about vaccines and infant mortality rates in the OP. I personally think that Natural News is a shill site for many of the less reputable alternative therapies and supplements, and is a sensationalist website, which uses scaremongering, rather than hard data, to sell itself and its sponsors, but gave them the benefit of the doubt and checked out the study quoted in the article, for myself.

The study, IMO, was a joke, and a very unscientific and biased joke. I base this opinion on my own research of the study, and the methods used by the study's authors.

spud





Tweet