The beauty of science is that if I so choose to, I can look up a trial on one of the many peer reviewed scientific journals, or on a trial register such as this... http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=h1n (ooooh look at all those H1N1 trials)
...see how a trial has been, or will be carried out, including how the outcome will be measured, and if I so choose to, carry out a trial using the same method to see if I get the same results.
From comprehensive meta-analysis carried out by independent, non-profit organisations such as the cochrane collaboration
(for example http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html)
I can eliminate any poor quality trials, and be left with the cream of the crop allowing me to reach a conclusion.
Unfortunatly learning how to understand the scientific method, read a paper, and tell good data from bad isn't something many non-scientists can do with ease hence we are left with people like you rabbiting on about conspiricy theroies and "opinion". Which also has the unfortunate side-effect of costing lives as seen with anti-polio vaccine in Nigeria, and quacks like Matthius Rath persuading people to stop taking anti-retrovirals in HIV infested Africa, instead recommending mega doses of his vitamin pills. Thankfully this quack has been shut down there, but the damage is done. These are real people who die, not numbers on a screen.
The same method that makes planes stay in the sky, provides heat for your home (and AC), produced your car, provides clean drinking water and sanitation, doubles the average human lifespan, and even is responsible for producing the very PC and screen you are now reading this post on, is exactly the same method that's producing life saving vaccines which you so happen to be against.
If you took the time to get an education you may one day realise that in the world of science, opinion counts for nothing.
The beauty of science is that if I so choose to, I can look up a trial on one of the many peer reviewed scientific journals, or on a trial register such as this...
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=h1n (ooooh look at all those H1N1 trials)
...see how a trial has been, or will be carried out, including how the outcome will be measured, and if I so choose to, carry out a trial using the same method to see if I get the same results.
From comprehensive meta-analysis carried out by independent, non-profit organisations such as the cochrane collaboration
(for example http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html)
I can eliminate any poor quality trials, and be left with the cream of the crop allowing me to reach a conclusion.
Unfortunatly learning how to understand the scientific method, read a paper, and tell good data from bad isn't something many non-scientists can do with ease hence we are left with people like you rabbiting on about conspiricy theroies and "opinion". Which also has the unfortunate side-effect of costing lives as seen with anti-polio vaccine in Nigeria, and quacks like Matthius Rath persuading people to stop taking anti-retrovirals in HIV infested Africa, instead recommending mega doses of his vitamin pills. Thankfully this quack has been shut down there, but the damage is done. These are real people who die, not numbers on a screen.
The same method that makes planes stay in the sky, provides heat for your home (and AC), produced your car, provides clean drinking water and sanitation, doubles the average human lifespan, and even is responsible for producing the very PC and screen you are now reading this post on, is exactly the same method that's producing life saving vaccines which you so happen to be against.
If you took the time to get an education you may one day realise that in the world of science, opinion counts for nothing.