Here's the scary thing about public companies being assumed to serve the best interests of people. Public companies are legally obligated to create profits for their shareholders.

It's quite a conflict of interest if the product you create has the potential for massive negative side effects, which would cause great harm to the companies abililty to make money for shareholders. Studies last year showed that certain anti depressants are causing near normal teenagers to commit suicide. Yesterday a new study was released saying not to worry, levels were actually down. Are the parents that lost kids supposed to accept this side effect? It appears so.

On the front page of the Courier Mail yesterday is the title "VACCINE FOR GIRLS: Plan for Free Year 7 Cervical Cancer Innoculation". Besides the fact that the title is completely misleading (It's a HPV vaccination not cervical cancer), they are planning to vaccination all 11-12 year old girls with this new vaccine, to prevent 200 deaths a year.

I am not saying that public businesses can't act for the common good. It's just that they appear in many cases to have their hands tied between serving two obligations, which could make for interesting decisions being made. Think of the tobacco companies knowing and hiding for years studies they had done linking smoking to cancer, at a time when people thought smoking was a perfectly healthy habbit.

This is the beauty of raw foods... it takes you a step back to nature, where free vaccines don't necessarily seem like a gift, and we question things just a little more.

Sheryl