I guess it is a gamble and if I have a 1 in 200 chance of a bad reaction and a 1 in 1000 chance of a fatal reaction but a 1 in 100 chance of having a bad or fatal case of the disease… well, I am not a betting man, but I would go with the better chances.
Wouldn’t you have to be “a betting man” to refuse the vaccine and thus face the worse odds?
“The study that so many people claimed “proved causality” was later denounced as a fraud.”
well the fraud here is Brian Deer, this investagative Journalist is actually sponsored by GSK he even works for one of the directors !! (baby Murdoch )
you are confusing science with “post marketing research” or as us parents of vaccine damaged children call it tabaco science or coverup.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/
RE: Vaccines didn't cause GWS (or autism, or ___, or ...) by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
“The study that so many people claimed “proved causality” was later denounced as a fraud.”
well the fraud here is Brian Deer, this investagative Journalist is actually sponsored by GSK he even works for one of the directors !! (baby Murdoch )
you are confusing science with “post marketing research” or as us parents of vaccine damaged children call it tabaco science or coverup.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/
RE: Vaccines didn't cause GWS (or autism, or ___, or ...) by Jackson :: NR7 :: Show
Yes. I screwed up the saying. Like I said, I am not a betting man, so I get the lingo screwed up. Or maybe not.
I would choose to be vaccinated. Clear?