The trouble with this "somebody made money on this, therefore it is suspect" argument is that it is a logical fallacy, attacking the motive. Let us say that you had it in mind to make a vaccine? Would you do it for free? How much time would you devote? How much equipment would you personally purchase? Furthermore, the argument is faulty at its core. Are all teachers suspect because they get a paycheck? Do you question the motives of your favorite music artist because he/she sells songs? In reality, no one gets rich off of vaccines, which account for only a tiny part of the big pharma profits. The real money is in maintenance medicines (those people have to take regularly for long periods of time) and redundant medicines for popular ailments (such as new allergy medicines that are no more effective than the old ones that are now generic). This is why most pharmaceuticals have stopped manufacturing vaccines.
Bruce - I'm sorry, but it is not really all that different an argument. "Big pharma makes money and uses it to hide the truth" is just a variation since the claim is that they make money off the thing they want to hide the truth about. It still amounts to an attacking the motive fallacy. And if you are demanding evidence as part of all this, what is the evidence of this big pharma conspiracy of hiding the truth? Furthermore, I do not equivocate. The point I was making with the teachers and musicians comparison had to do with the basic idea that money turns anything someone does automatically suspect, which is a crucial point to your argument.