You are always able to check the facts for yourself, because these skeptical websites are usually written by scientists, who are accustomed to providing references to back up the points they make. Thus even if they do have an agenda against say organic food, the points they raise can be checked and validated. In that sense, skeptical websites are very useful. Of course, if you are not the scientific type, then you may not have the knowledge base to verify these references.
Whereas when you read a website that is say pro-organic food, they hype up the assumed benefits of organic food, and use emotional or poetic phrases like "mother nature's best" or similar, but often do not provide any evidence that organic food has any health benefits over regular good food. So organic food websites also have their own biased agenda, and they are more concerned with promoting their philosophy (and product sales) than verifying this philosophy in a factual way. In that sense, organic food has more than a hint of religion about it.
And the same biased agenda is found on anti-vax websites: do they ever mention the benefits of vaccines, or mention that if enterovirus and herpesvirus vaccines were developed, then this may well eradicate or curtail diseases such as ME/CFS, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, heart attacks and heart disease, and many others. No, this this is never mentioned on anti-vax websites. Sure, vaccine safety is an important issue, but so are the health benefits of vaccines, but the anti-vax crowd don't address these benefits. I find that irresponsible and biased.
If that is the case, why did
the GlaxoSmithKline H1N1 pandemic flu vaccine that triggered many cases of the autoimmune disease narcolepsy come to light?
This side effect was fully acknowledged by GSK, and the study examining the mechanism by which this vaccine may have triggered narcolepsy has been published without any problems. That does not sound like information suppression.
I would like to see more research into vaccine safety though.