Cause it's true.
Yes, because I always trust the word of a Conman.
The net result is a anti-vaccination, and the net result of that is children dieing from preventable diseases.
If we want to talk about Pharmaceutical company ethics - Fine. Lets talk about that. But when the Director/producer/idiot person in that interview says one of the most monumentally Stupid, Dangerous and deceptive things I think I've ever heard, You'll forgive me if I call it a spade, regardless of what type of Garden implement they try and dress it up as.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Okay then, first point of Order - Can you draw a distinction between legitimate action to defend against Conmen and nutjobs who have a chip on their shoulder and verifiable bad practices by the Pharmaceutical companies - ie they broke the laws of the countries where they sold their products?
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
So you completely missed the point and none of the other disciples (am I supposed to call them sheeple?) were game to answer.
Because its not defendable.
A study of just 12 people, preselected or otherwise, is just so statistically irrelevant to warrent any credibility. Yet 20 years on people are still wibbling on about this.
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks