no it is not whos science???

the vaccines companies themselves ?

A communist friend of mine was right tbh

Even if I hate to admit

Most of research is made by public institutions (universities)

At least here

And god, if vaccines where dangerous those guys would love to attack capitalism

Well, medicine is not my area but I will provide you some data I found

Because I need to study calculus now XD

https://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=KberCAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR16&dq=info:IeGztalxBjMJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=HbphsEe_GZ&sig=20ZP1EY6o3Xtpfk6mZhznSSYaB0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X03008090

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/48/4/456/284219

https://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?hl=pt-BR&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=vaccine+efficacy&oq=vaccine+#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DhViwcFYP7_MJ

https://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?hl=pt-BR&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=vaccine+efficacy&oq=vaccine+#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D8R-st1XwITgJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1-LuDt6nYg

even dr oz wont vaccinate his kids hahahaha

@Vitmar lol so google searches are proof it is scientific hahahaha

This is on google academics

Google scholar in your language actually

. To date, one study has measured blood levels of total mercury in vaccinated infants and reports only a brief low-level exposure with rapid excretion of mercury. It is not yet known for sure how much (if any) vaccine-derived ethyl mercury in the blood crosses the blood–brain barrier.

so it was not conclusive

These follow scientific work standards

hahahahaha

no they dont

Then why are they on google scholar?

Do you want me to get something frim universities themselves?

And what is the difference from your founts

https://www.projectveritas.com/video/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/ google hahahaha

know liars

are you fking kidding me

they only put out what they want you to see

Ok, now you're starting to reduce your founts quality even more

I am sorry but I can't belive conspirational theories sites

http://humansarefree.com/2019/04/science-pioneer-99-of-modern-scientific.html “People just don’t do it,” Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong told Brietbart.com after making the shocking claim that less that one percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method.
According to Armstrong, “the goal of objectivity is one that is sought but seldom achieved because the bias of the researcher is always present. [One researcher, Mitroff] concluded that scientists [become] famous not by being objective, but by being advocates. This appears to be true. Advocacy is a good strategy for career advancement. However, I believe that it is bad advice for making scientific contributions.”
Armstrong stated that the forecasts from the world-recognized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violated all eight criteria.

“What’s happening now is, government research, universities — they’re asking for what I call advocacy research. They have something, they want you to prove it, make sure you prove it, [and when] you do, you keep getting paid,” he said in a separate article on Breitbart.com.
“Advocacy research is the bulk of these 99 percent of non-scientific studies and they’re not done for scientific development, they’re done to support a political idea. If you want to make money in universities these days, you publish papers that support global warming and you live handsomely.”

less than 1% follows the scientific method hahahaha

that means over 99% is pseudoscience

done for MONEY

This is such a fascinating idea to consider; particularly as the base motivation for these “scientists” appear to be more focused on capitalism rather than accuracy. Armstrong argued that being politically convenient is more rewarding both financially and in terms of one’s career.
“[Scientists] cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want,” he concluded

This is such a fascinating idea to consider; particularly as the base motivation for these “scientists” appear to be more focused on capitalism rather than accuracy. Armstrong argued that being politically convenient is more rewarding both financially and in terms of one’s career.
“[Scientists] cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want,” he concluded

Then you are wrong and so am I