perseus hello
It is indeed a completely opposable criticism, even if there is a part of argument Tu quoque which has its limits.
As?
But you mustn't stop at my point of view. Research a number of former ministers or government officials who have been employed by companies (not just on this subject) whom they had "fought" during their ministry or from these companies.
the 1st minister comes from Areva,
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politi ... 08326.html the president of the bank:
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/20 ... acron.htmland therefore the Minister of Health.
So I am not in the dogma, but in the remark that it is more than common thing. Only the future will tell by following its course.
But if by chance you work close to the Bio and / or alternative medicine sectors, some might consider that you also have financial motivations on which to base a bias, especially given the incredible proselytism which you demonstrate ... Beware of selective indignation.
I am much too old (that's the advantage of retirement!) To be part of an organic or alternative medicine sector (you don't have to believe me of course, but my career has been spent in 'industry) but I have miles on the odometer and I have seen and heard them of all colors (10 successive governments) on the big decisions in health matters. It is the first government to make such a decision.
without consulting the highest health authorities who have declared themselves against.
For proselytism, without it things would not move. Watch political proselytism with all the fans who give their time to an idea, even an ideology. But where is the reality and I'm not even talking about any truth. What do we see?
The left thinks they are right and therefore have the truth on their side and that the right is wrong, The right does the same! The center is not outdone in preaching that the others are excessive and even worse for the left of the left and the right of the right.
However proselytism and usually muzzled information is a little different and even a lot! If you reread all the prose made here, on my part, on this subject,
I'm just pointing out unethical scientists opposed to conformist scientists so that everyone, in conscience, is informed and can make a choice, after reflection and experience in the field (in a way, unpretentious, like duck chained or multi media which give information that you do not will not, or rarely, find on your usual duck (except when it can no longer be hidden)
For the outrage, that's a bit of the goal! You can only collect the olives by shaking the tree like Coluche did with his peculiar humor (without him no restaurant of the heart) and his bocardage of the politician when he presented himself (except that he paid for it expensive!)
If indignation leads only to shut oneself up on oneself and its conditionings, it is a pity; if it pushes you to think, to educate yourself, to raise awareness and therefore to question yourself, it will have had some utility.
Concerning the vaccination, I am vaccinated of a certain number of illnesses, but I am not that close, I do not have to be well up to date. I wanted to discuss this debate with my partner - who comes from a sub-Saharan African country - one day I came across an article in some duck. She properly sent me back to my ropes, telling me that it was above all a debate in rich countries where we have a life expectancy of 75 years and medical cover in the event of illness.
It's not very clear ! She declares herself for or against these vaccinations which are going to be imposed?
but you are in the experience, not in the theories of ministries or faculties of medicine in complete discrepancy with the reality on the ground, in France as in Africa and even elsewhere.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré