I've seen this to be a problem with the anti-vaccine movement, they cherry pick data that supports their views, while ignoring data that proves them wrong. Unfortunately, that is not how science works. You can't simply ignore anything that doesn't agree with your hypothesis. You can't claim that data supporting the use of vaccines is false, while using incomplete data to support your claim.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I've seen this to be a problem with the pro-vaccine movement, they cherry pick data that supports their views, while ignoring data that proves them wrong. Unfortunately, that is not how science works. You can't simply ignore anything that doesn't agree with your hypothesis. You can't claim that data supporting the knowledge that vaccines are unsafe doesn't exist, while using incomplete data to support your claim.
This knowledge is readily available to all who are interested in looking for it.
I think you forgot that every doctor is bribed by the pharma industry ;)