1 Short thread . Is there a taboo that prevents any scientific discussion about vaccines?
2 This is the question posed by this article that makes a correct factual analysis, namely that studies, even of good quality, that question the efficacy or safety of vaccines are censored by the official scientific community. nytimes.com/2018/08/04/opi…
3 As an example, this author cites the studies from Danuta Skowronski, an epidemiologist from British Columbia university, who has shown a probable causal relationship, under certain conditions, between iterative vaccination against influenza and severe forms of influenza
5 Or the 2005 study from Simonsen showing thaht the decline of flu deaths wasn’t correlated with flu vaccination coverage as stated by scientific community experts and KOLS jamanetwork.com/journals/jamai…
6 The low effectiveness of influenza vaccines is now confirmed in each new season and Cochrane has decided to stabilize its reviews since new studies don’t add anything and influenza like infections epidemiology is fluctuating and unreliable community.cochrane.org/news/why-have-…
7 This censorship on scientific facts event established with a good methodology making probable the causal relation hampers the scientific progress according to the author of the article.
8 But it is strange that the author clears the scientific community and especially the key opinion leaders of any responsibility and questions only the anti-vaccine movement
9 Anti-vaccine movements have existed for more than two centuries, but this tendency to systematically censor any questioning of the official discourse on science, and particularly, on vaccines, is much more recent.
10 I believe that the author is doing an inversion of causality. It is the censorship that fuels suspicion and favors anti-vaccine movements.
11 And as we say in French, we must look at "who benefits from the crime" that is to say, who benefits from this censorship. These are the key opinion leaders and the pharmaceutical industry
