Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of Researchers and Practitioners
26 May 2022
by Josh Guetzkow, republished with permission from his Substack, Jackanapes Junction

In late 2019, I joined two other Israeli criminologists and a health risk communications expert in a research project to study the suppression of scientific dissent around the topic of vaccines. At the time, none of us could have ever imagined what was looming right around the corner.

Two of them (Natti Ronel and Ety Elisha) had written a review of a Hebrew-language book called “Turtles All The Way Down,” which was a critical review of vaccine safety science. The thing about the book is that it was published anonymously, as the author(s) feared the potential retribution that might ensue.

Their review was published in the Hebrew-language journal, Medicine (Refuah), which is the journal of the Israeli Medical Association, sort of like the Israeli equivalent of JAMA. I won’t go into how it ever got published in the book review section, but the review simply focused on the absurdity of a scientist who felt the need to publish a scientific book anonymously due to fear of the consequences. Ironically, the publication of the review caused a huge uproar (you can read more about that here where it was covered in Science), and the review itself was retracted, or more precisely it simply disappeared from the on-line version of the journal.

So we started a project to study the phenomena of scientific censorship and suppression of scientific dissent in the field of vaccines by interviewing scientists and doctors who had either had their papers retracted or who had faced attempts to suppress their views. Notably, the only retracted papers in the field of vaccinology that we could identify all raised questions about the safety of vaccines. And this was all BEFORE the COVID pandemic hit. (We’ve got another one that covers the COVID period that should be coming out fairly soon.)

In other words, everything it describes happened before the pandemic. The censorship and suppression we’ve witnessed these last two years already existed — it has only kicked into overdrive. The deliberate dismantling of science didn’t start two years ago.

If it isn’t clear why criminologists would be interested in this topic, consider the following general definition of crime: force or fraud in the pursuit of self-interest.

So without further ado, you can read both papers embedded (hopefully) below:

Elisha, Guetzkow, Shir-Raz and Ronel. 2022. “Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners.” HEC Forum.

Elisha, Guetzkow, Shir-Raz and Ronel. 2021. “Retraction of scientific papers: the case of vaccine research.” Critical Public Health.

Publisher’s note: The opinions and findings expressed in articles, reports and interviews on this website are not necessarily the opinions of PANDA, its directors or associates.

Share this

Post Tags

Our News In Your Inbox

Subscribe to our newsletter

RECENTLY ADDED TO THE SITE

Global Health and the Art of Really Big Lies

Global Health and the Art of Really Big Lies

by Dr David Bell | The new public health response that was trialed during this outbreak is far more attractive to investors creating vast opportunities for future growth. Holding to the new dogma enables a positive career path and financial security, as did siding with the Inquisition centuries ago.

Pfizer’s Covid-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial Review

Pfizer’s Covid-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial Review

by Shay Zakov | In this work, we review the reports provided by Pfizer to the FDA for the trial’s first interim analysis. The reports demonstrate severe flaws in the procedure of approving Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine based on data from the vaccine’s phase III clinical trial.

Open letter to Facebook for de-platforming and ripping off PANDA

Open letter to Facebook for de-platforming and ripping off PANDA

When the foundations of civil societies are being overhauled at speed, and when tried and tested laws and policies are being replaced, people need open spaces for inquiry and debate more than ever. Social media platforms should not only take responsibility for facilitating such fora, but should actively embrace and encourage them.