I'm not denying a competing interest. But.....please:
1. I can assure you that when I decline a vaccine, Dr. Tent isn't making any money.
2. Both vaxxing and non-vaxxing parents supplement themselves and their children with vitamins. I don't think it would be terribly profitable to run a business marketing to the 1% of US parents who don't vax at all...and then banking on a fraction of that number choosing my vitamins over some other brand. Nor would I spend my valuable time and resources as a vitamin marketer first trying to convince people not to vaccinate. It would be more effective to peddle my wares to people regardless of their vax status.
3. Dr. Tent isn't trying to force my children by the hand of the Law to take his vitamins. My children don't have to take those vitamins in order to receive an education. I don't have to explain myself or my intimately held beliefs to unelected public health employees or school officials who are trying to intimidate me into taking Dr. Tent's vitamins. If something goes wrong with Dr. Tent's vitamins, I may sue his company directly. Naturopaths--and even MDs--don't refuse to treat me if I don't take Dr. Tent's vitamins.. Hard-working health care professionals don't lose their jobs if they decline Dr. Tent's vitamins. I'd say that vax manufacturers are in a much, much more prime situation to rake in a profit.
Starting to see a difference here?
Also, please pay posters the courtesy of viewing their links before critiquing them. It may be better, anyway, to view the information for yourself instead of turning immediately to pseudo-skeptic bloggers who validate your prejudices.
I've only gotten 20 minutes into the presentation, so I won't yet comment on its contents. I'll stay skeptical, PSM, but so far... no sales pitches yet.