For instance: I have no proof that there are PR departments of public health organizations and stock-market listed companies who are actively suppressing negati

For instance: I have no proof that there are PR departments of public health organizations and stock-market listed companies who are actively suppressing negative information on vaccines (contents, adverse effects, low-but-sufficient efficiency). I think it is highly likely that there are economic, panic-management or public health incentives to against dangerous, yet partly true, ideas, and that big pharma and CDC could be conspiring to manage and control this information and what opinions I form. That, well-intentioned, Google and Youtube and Facebook and Twitter and WHO and some other elites sat in a secret meeting room, and wrote the playbook on how to deal with people proposing multi-vatimins as a cure, or even as a help for improving immune system. That such people are banned (or even arrested if they have medical authority) for things that in a normal situation people would have a right not to mistreated as such. You have no proof that big pharma does not conspire to suppress half-measures and inconvenient situations (people refusing to mask up until vaccine is released). But what makes you think that? You looked at the history of big pharma, at the history of capitalism, at the history of public health controversies and attempts from the top to manage that and politicize it, and you see nothing of suspicion for extrapolating that to the uncertain future we live in? Or you trust them on their blue eyes or because believing it would make you feel bad?