Lots of similarities here:
"In the face of mounting damning evidence against their product, the companies responded by creating doubt and controversy surrounding the health risks, whilst at the same time by responding to the growing public concern by putting filters on cigarettes and promising research into the health effects of smoking. They lulled the smoking public into a false sense of security, because, whilst this had the hallmarks of responsible companies acting in the public interest, it was actually a public relations strategy to buy time, at the expense of public health. "
Sound familiar? That's because it is.
"Despite decades of evidence to the contrary, and millions of deaths caused by tobacco, the industry still largely maintains that the case against the cigarette is unproven. " Sounds just like the industry that produces and profits from vaccines, Vioxx, Lipitor, antidepressants....except the phramaceutical industry is backed by...the government.
"Thirty years later, the majority of the industry still publicly denies the causation theory..."
"One all-encompassing fear of the American companies that had repercussions on their British counterparts was the threat of litigation. This affected what the companies researched in private and what they said in public." The pharmaceutical industry clearly learned their lessons from the tobacco debacle. The threat of litigation is now gone. You CAN'T sue the vaccine manufacturers for adverse reactions. And they've learned not to "go there," not to research anything that might lead to the conclusion that vaccines do indeed cause much more than "vanishingly rare" adverse reactions. If you don't do that research, it can never be used against you.