I believe that the risks are real, I really do. I'm not disputing that. The reason why the attitude tiring is because medical issues have been handled very badl

I believe that the risks are real, I really do. I'm not disputing that. The reason why the attitude tiring is because medical issues have been handled very badly in the last few years. To be honest, it might also be that I started paying more attention to it in those few years and it has always been handled badly. My point is that it's becoming really hard for an average person today to decide how to react to information from medical field. Every now and then there's a report of a "new study" which "concludes" this or that about some disease or condition or disorder. More often than not, the study is not really a study but a theory, or it's not sound for this or that reason, or it's not new, or it doesn't really conclude anything yet, etc. Plus, on top of it, you get stuff like that whole fiasco with vaccines. What I'm driving at is that the way this stuff is handled makes it really hard for ordinary people like me to make decisions. If it was just about me, then I wouldn't worry so much, but my son is three years old and each time a new "threat" appears, I have to decide what to do. Finally, regarding the article, was it really necessary to start it that way? Yes, the risks are real, but how does stating them yet again contribute to the article?