"Anti-Science" Accusations are Anti-Scientific

“By trying to reduce “science” – which, by definition, explores doubts, complexity, and is in constant evolution – to simple messages set in stone, scientists can become the worse enemies of science.”

Paul, Brown et al, “Who is anti-science”?

We now know that a wide range of psychological manipulation methods (PsyWar and Cognitive Warfare) were deployed by western governments since early 2020 to support false narrative scaffolds that SARS-CoV-2 is a highly lethal virus, that the deployed COVID genetic vaccines were safe, effective, and necessary to prevent widespread excessive death (ergo the incorrectly modeled 3.4% case fatality rate), and innumerable other lies. Multiple examples exist which demonstrate that governmentally deployed “nudge” technology, intentional “fear” messaging targeting both children and adults, and literally thousands of funded academic studies probing methods for overcoming “vaccine hesitancy” have been deployed against the general populace.

These methods and techniques were further amplified by established legacy/corporate media and their employees, who functioned as propagandists rather than serving as independent investigators and arbiters of truthful information. Furthermore, a wide range of weaponized terms were developed and deployed as intentional smears by government, non-governmental organizations and corporate media in an attempt to censor and delegitimize scientists, physicians, and others who dared to question these promoted false narratives.

As a component of this propaganda campaign, a new lexicon was also developed and weaponized, including terms such as “anti-vaxxer”- which was quite literally redefined in Webster’s dictionary to include any who did not support vaccine mandates, as well as the notorious trio of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. These three terms were widely used by media, government and NGO to label and discredit any who did no parrot the approved but often shifting narrative flowing from CDC, NIH, FDA, or WHO, and once injected into common use were then defined by DHS as justification for labeling any accused of spreading such as domestic terrorists. The specific definition of the term “vaccine” was even modified to align with newly developed pharmaceutical products which rely on polynucleotide (genetic information) delivery technology.

Of all of the linguistic and cognitive manipulations weaponized during the COVIDcrisis, one of the most offensive and corrosive relates to the meaning of the word “Science”, with active promotion of the concept that those who question the (now proven to be) false promoted narratives were “anti-Science”, that organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization or World Economic Forum could “own the Science”, or that a governmental official (such as Dr. Anthony Fauci) could personify and embody “Science”.

All of this consciously and intentionally weaponized psychological manipulation was then cast into a political context which shifted as the Presidential election season approached and US Executive Branch leadership transitioned between parties. Democrat party candidates who were extremely skeptical of the safety and effectiveness of rushed, experimental “Emergency Use Authorized” genetic vaccines developed under the preceding Trump administration suddenly became unquestioning advocates for the same products, mandating their use for military personnel, federal employees and federal contractors. Flipping from skeptics to fanatics, the new administration employed a variety of coercive tactics to coerce or entice public and private sector endorsement of mandates including for College and School-age children who were at virtually no risk for death from COVID disease.

To provide just one of many examples to illustrate the partisan politicization of “Science”, it is worth reading the Harvard Gazette October 2020 essay titled “Why isn’t the right more afraid of COVID-19? Rejecting science and expertise, as the president urges, has become a reflection of loyalty, analysts say”. The excerpt below is typical of the analysis covered in the essay, which has not aged well. Since publication, time has validated the underlying truth that the overall morbidity and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 pales in comparison to the damage caused by the promoted public health response. In other words, the article is much like most of the officially promoted narratives and corporate media propaganda.

“Observers of conservative politics say it’s perfectly logical that Trump fans so willingly accept his counterfactual statements about the pandemic and go along with efforts to discredit scientists in order to delegitimize politically damaging statistics. For years, Republicans have successfully seized upon a larger cultural trend of diminished faith in experts around issues like climate change.

“We think expertise is this very exclusionary idea, which it is, because it’s supposed to be: Not everybody gets a vote on how to fly the plane,” said Nichols, who wrote about the trend in a 2017 book, “The Death of Expertise.” In the pandemic, “This rejection of science and of expertise [has] become [a] demonstration of political loyalty. That’s the part I didn’t expect — that there would be an entire political movement, led by the president of the United States, to basically disavow science.”

In a recent interview, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that because science still holds a place of esteem and authority in the wider culture, it has become a proxy for those who want to lash out against authority figures. It’s a view Nichols shares.

“At the end of the ’60s and ’70s, the right won the economic war. The American economy is structured just the way conservatives want. But the left won the culture war, and that just annoys the [expletive] out of conservatives,” said Nichols, a former Republican who left the party in 2018. He is now part of the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump political action group of mostly lapsed.”

It is now time to revisit, reflect and analyze the impacts which this propaganda, censorship, and targeted bullying, cyberstalking and harassment campaigns have had on public health enterprises as well as on the legitimacy of the World Health Organization as a global coordinator for public health responses to perceived and promoted health threats. In particular, as is often the case with surreptitious “intelligence” operations, it is time to consider the “blowback” or unintended consequences of these heavy-handed policies, and the long term damages they have caused to both the vaccine enterprise and support for universal “public health” measures and mandates in general. Just as has happened with so many other propaganda campaigns such as those deployed in support of otherwise unpopular or unethical government-endorsed domestic and foreign policy objectives, the short term benefits are often negated by long term consequences.

Now those who promoted these false narratives must confront the damage they have caused to legitimate public health objectives.

A newly published peer-reviewed academic manuscript has examined the recent history of how the scientific reporting about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines has evolved. The findings demonstrate the absurdity of the weaponized jargon “Anti-Science”.

To a significant extent, the term “Anti-Science” was foreshadowed, weaponized and injected into national and international use by noted vaccine proponent Dr. Peter Hotez, who in March 2020 published an opinion titled “Combating antiscience: Are we preparing for the 2020s?” In this essay, Dr. Hotez basically proposes that during their training, science students be converted into policy advocates rather than politically impartial investigators of truth, much as journalism schools are now focused on creating practitioners of “advocacy journalism” (ergo propaganda) rather than more traditional impartial and balanced investigative journalists. According to Dr. Hotez;

In the last half of the 2010s, we saw an upswing in antiscience movements and unprecedented attacks on scientists in the United States and elsewhere. All indications suggest that this trend will not slow or reverse anytime soon, and it is now increasingly apparent that it will fall to the scientists themselves to respond, engage a skeptical public, and lead the defense of science. Accordingly, we must recognize opportunities to both reorganize science doctoral and postdoctoral training and incentivize senior scientists as a means to establish a new ecosystem for science public engagement. Such activities may become essential if the assaults on our profession continue or expand. Today, the commitment of young scientists to public service is at an all-time high. However, we must work quickly to capture that enthusiasm and channel it into a social good, lest we lose this opportunity.

If one had to select a single Western government with the most aggressive and sophisticated propaganda, deployed military PsyWar, Nudge and censorship campaign during the COVIDcrisis, a strong candidate would be Her/His Majesties Government of the United Kingdom, where the 77th brigade of the British Army as well as MI5/6 have been unapologetically and enthusiastically deployed to promote and police government-approved COVID narratives. All of which makes the publication of this manuscript even more remarkable, given the organization which it represents.

Who is "anti-science"?

Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2024 Mar 29:7:100493. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100493.

The academic journal which has allowed this to be published (not retracted yet, at time of this publication) is the official journal of the Royal Society of Public Health. The RSPH defines the scope and aims of the journal as follows:

Putting research into action

Public Health in Practice is an international, peer-reviewed, gold open access journal that seeks to improve the health of the public through high-quality actionable evidence. The journal aims to publish international articles focused on the art of translating and implementing public health evidence into practice. Research does not end once results are published. That is just the beginning. Translating research findings or policy to a local context and implementing findings is how we learn about what works and what doesn't. This learning refines our thinking and working practices and will lead to even better research questions, practice and ultimately public health.

I find the approach taken fascinating, as the work examines the shifting narrative concerning the safety and effectiveness of the genetic vaccine products over time. This analysis is preceded by a general observation which serves as a near perfect counterpoint to various statements on the topic from both Dr. Fauci and his sycophantic surrogate Dr. Hotez.

Concerningly, the moniker “science” is often exploited if it can generate an industrial profit, while a multitude of other important evidence – for instance, on social or commercial determinants of health – is conveniently overlooked. Here, understanding the dynamics of how knowledge is socially constructed and used is crucial. This is because health interventions, and what is determined to be science, can often be captured by combinations of favoured scientific practice, pathway-dependency, vested interests, politics, louder voices, or, regarding our immediate concern, by ideational hegemonies that prohibit wider dialogic knowledge production.

The authors proceed to summarize, with detailed references cited, the historical course of events which all objective observers will find depressingly familiar. The reference list alone is worth the price of admission, and so is included below. The authors’ words, observations, and conclusions speak for themselves, providing a clear and compelling inditement of those who have perverted the concept of “Science” in seeking to “own” this process and pervert it to advance their commercial, financial, power and other political objectives.

An illustration: Covid-19 vaccines

The “anti-science” mantra has been used to refer to those people “hesitant” of vaccines [23], and particularly Covid-19 vaccines. But what does science say about Covid-19 vaccines?

Below is a reflection on the “scientific reporting” of the two most widely used vaccines utilising the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) platform: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). As for other medical commodities, the double-blind clinical trial is usually brandished as providing the most reliable scientific results regarding these vaccines, even if conducted by the pharmaceutical firms commercialising them.

The results from both mRNA vaccines clinical trials were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Pfizer published interim results on December 31, 2020, showing 95% efficacy in preventing Covid-19 [24]. A follow-up publication, published on November 4, 2021, showed 91.3% vaccine efficacy through 6 months of follow-up [25]. Moderna published interim results on February 4, 2021, showing 94.1% efficacy in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 [26]. Another publication at the completion of the blinded phase, also published on November 4, 2021, showed 93.2% vaccine efficacy in preventing Covid-19 illness [27]. None of these studies identified safety concerns.

Real-life estimates of vaccine effectiveness using observational data soon followed the first waves of vaccination. The American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced on April 2, 2021 that primary data indicated 90% effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection for both mRNA vaccines [28]. An analysis of the first four months of vaccination campaign in Israel, published on May 5, 2021, estimated the Pfizer vaccine effectiveness after 7 days of second dose to be between 91.5% for asymptomatic infection and 97.5% against severe or critical Covid-19-related hospitalisation [29].

These encouraging results comforted the idea that these vaccines were “miraculous” [30], even while notifications of breakthrough infections started to be reported by the end of the first half of 2021 [31]. However, science is not about miracles, and scientific evidence of efficacy does not equate to effectiveness and broader impacts. Science is about questioning facts and depicting the whole complexity of the natural and social worlds.

Let us adopt a broader look at the mRNA Covid- 19 vaccines. First, let us note that the design of the “gold standard” clinical studies referenced above was questioned from the start – notably due to the choice of their outcome(s) of concern, that is the indicator(s) measured to assess effectiveness: in this case, symptomatic infection, which is different to measuring severity of or mortality from the disease [32,33]. Later on, the quality of the data of the Pfizer trial was also questioned, notably due to suspicion of data falsification, unblinding of patients, and lack of controls [34].

These two concerns should have reduced the faith in the “95% efficacy” claims made from the trials and opened a debate amongst scientists and decision-makers. This did not widely occur at the time, nor did it question the choice of mass vaccination strategies as the only exit strategy from Covid-19 [35]. Nevertheless, an abundant literature has since depicted a far more nuanced picture of the effectiveness and safety of those vaccines over the medium-term, as summarised below.

First, science – through the clinical trials of mRNA vaccines – showed efficacy above 90% (see above). Yet, this is calculated in terms of relative risk reduction – that is, the percentage of reduction in adverse outcomes between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. However, “the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision- making” [36] is absolute risk reduction – that is, actual difference in risk between two groups. When calculating Covid-19 vaccines’ absolute risk reduction based on the same reported outcome data, it is far less convincing – 1.2% for the Moderna and 0.84% for the Pfizer vaccine [37].

Second, science – through observational data – showed that a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine was 93% (relative) effective against admission to hospital, 92% (relative) effective against severe disease, and 81% (relative) effective against COVID-19-related death. Of note, these results were found after a median follow-up time of only 13 days [38] which is a clinically meaningless timeframe, being a short-term outcome irrelevant to policymaking, and even if “true”, pragmatically impossible to apply as it would require vaccination twice a month.

Third, science – based on the individual clinical trials – showed a good safety profile of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines [25,27]. However, a re-examination of pooled safety data to get more statistical power, showed that the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of “serious adverse events of special interest” (as defined by the Brighton Collaboration [39]) of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated – that is, one in every 800 vaccinated [40]. Such an adverse event rate must be contextualised in relation to risk-benefit estimates, which we regard as an imperative from a research and policy ethics perspective.

Fourth, even with increasingly reported waning effectiveness, science suggests that the Covid-19 vaccines remain effective in preventing severe Covid-19 among at-risk populations [41–45]. <This point is currently very debatable>.Yet, science – in a risk-benefit analysis – also showed that adolescents do not benefit from the Pfizer vaccine, except for non-immune girls with comorbidities [46]. Unstratified effectiveness measured by only a single performance measure, should not be the only criterium to inform clinical and policy decision-making, equally important are considerations of efficiency, equity, and acceptance.

Fifth, while the clinical trials were not designed to evaluate the vaccine’s effect on mortality, a systematic review of observational data showed an effect of the vaccines reducing “Covid-19 related death” [47] <This point is also debatable>. Yet, the Pfizer study’s supplementary material shows there was one more death (“overall mortality”) in the vaccine than placebo group [25, 48]. Albeit a statistically insignificant result, hiding this finding is not “responsible conduct of research” [49], nor ethically defensible. It indeed may damage the trustworthiness of science, given that the pooled mRNA trial results showed a statistically significant relative “all cause” risk increase for mRNA vaccination (hazard ratio 1.03) [50].

Scientific findings will always be questioned, but one avoidable critique relates to the skewed reporting of study findings, like relative rather than absolute effectiveness, which is misleading, and indeed a form of “anti-science”. As suggested above, scientific method is a means to gaining new knowledge, not truth. Of note, scientific approaches only produce data. It is the process of deliberation amongst scientists (and other stakeholders) [51] that results in accepted new knowledge, which ultimately will be modified by future findings. Only the application of the best available knowledge can lead to “wise decision-making” [52], particularly when facilitated within democratic procedures.

In sociological terms, this form of decision-making can better mirror our perceived “lifeworld”, thus enhancing mutual social understanding by better capturing shared experience and collective problem solving [10]. Rather than uncritically continuing to perpetuate the “follow the science” vs “anti-science” dichotomy, let us all look in the mirror and reflect what really constitutes science. If nothing else, this involves the curiosity of deliberating the multiple perspectives arising from the different lenses of inquiry. Being open-minded and critical does not immediately equate to being “anti-science”, as some medical and political thought leaders want us to believe.

Conclusion

By trying to reduce “science” – which, by definition, explores doubts, complexity, and is in constant evolution – to simple messages set in stone, scientists can become the worse enemies of science. The independence of science should be paramount, however, the pervasive inf luence of political expediency, industrial interests and corruption in healthcare and medicine does not serve its inquiries [53,54]. To regain public trust in science, it is high time scientists acknowledge the limitations of their methods and of their results, and to provide decision-makers, populations and healthcare providers with appropriate tools to judge how to best apply particular research results to individuals and communities. Science can never provide insights that allow the imposition of a universal blueprint to all. What it requires is reinvigorated commitments to deliberative science and politics, democratic procedures, open contestation without epithets, genuine reason-giving, and, most importantly, humility.

[23] J.K. Ward, P. Guille-Escuret, C. Alapetite, Les « antivaccins », figure de l’anti- Science, D´ eviance Soc. 43 (2) (2019) 221–251 [Internet], https://www.cairn. info/revue-deviance-et-societe-2019-2-page-221.htm.

[24] F.P. Polack, S.J. Thomas, N. Kitchin, J. Absalon, A. Gurtman, S. Lockhart, et al., Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA covid-19 vaccine, N. Engl. J. Med. 383 (27) (2020) 2603–2615, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 [Internet]. 31 d´ ec.

[25] S.J. Thomas, E.D. Moreira, N. Kitchin, J. Absalon, A. Gurtman, S. Lockhart, et al., Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA covid-19 vaccine through 6 months, N. Engl. J. Med. 385 (19) (4 nov 2021) 1761–1773, https://doi.org/10.1056/ NEJMoa2110345 [Internet].

[26] L.R. Baden, H.M. El Sahly, B. Essink, K. Kotloff, S. Frey, R. Novak, et al., Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, N. Engl. J. Med. 384 (5) (2021) 403–416, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389 [Internet]. 4 f´ evr.

[27] H.M. El Sahly, L.R. Baden, B. Essink, S. Doblecki-Lewis, J.M. Martin, E.J. Anderson, et al., Efficacy of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at completion of blinded phase, N. Engl. J. Med. 385 (19) (2021) 1774–1785, https://doi.org/10.1056/ NEJMoa2113017 [Internet]. 4 nov.

[28] M. Thompson, J. Burgess, A. Naleway, et al., Interim estimates of vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers — eight U.S. Locations, december 2020–march 2021, MMWR Morb, Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 70 (2021) 495–500 [Internet]. 2 avr, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e 3_w#suggestedcitation.

[29] E.J. Haas, F.J. Angulo, J.M. McLaughlin, E. Anis, S.R. Singer, F. Khan, et al., Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: an observational study using national surveillance data, Lancet 397 (10287) (2021) 1819–1829, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00947- 8 (Internet). 15 mai.

[30] R. McKie, The vaccine miracle: how scientists waged the battle against Covid-19, Guardian (2020) [Internet]. 6 d´ ec, https://www.theguardian.com/world/202 0/dec/06/the-vaccine-miracle-how-scientists-waged-the-battle-against-covid-19.

[31] T. Kustin, N. Harel, U. Finkel, S. Perchik, S. Harari, M. Tahor, et al., Evidence for increased breakthrough rates of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in BNT162b2- mRNA-vaccinated individuals, Nat. Med. 27 (8) (2021) 1379–1384, https://doi. org/10.1038/s41591-021-01413-7. Disponible sur:.

[32] P. Doshi, Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us, BMJ (2020) m4037 [Internet]. 21 oct, http://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj. m4037.abstract.

[33] P. Doshi, Clarification: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data, Br. Med. J. (2021) [cit´ e 12 avr 2021]. Disponible sur: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/02/05/clarification-pfizer-and-modernas-9 5-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/.

[34] P.D. Thacker, Covid-19: researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial, BMJ 375 (2021) n2635 [Internet], https://www.bmj.com/co ntent/375/bmj.n2635. [35] E. Paul, G.W. Brown, A. Kalk, V. Ridde, Playing vaccine roulette: why the current strategy of staking everything on Covid-19 vaccines is a high-stakes wager, Vaccine [Internet]. 16 août 39

(35) (2021) 4921–4924. Disponible sur: https://www.scienc edirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21009233. [36] L. Irwig, J. Irwig, L. Trevena, et al., Relative risk, relative and absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat and confidence intervals, in: Smart Health Choices: Making Sense of Health Advice [Internet], Hammersmith Press, London, 2008. Disponible sur: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/.

[37] P. Olliaro, E. Torreele, M. Vaillant, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room, Lancet Microbe 2 (7) (2021) e279–e280, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0 [Internet]. 1 juill.

[38] N. Barda, N. Dagan, C. Cohen, M.A. Hern´ an, M. Lipsitch, I.S. Kohane, et al., Effectiveness of a third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for preventing severe outcomes in Israel: an observational study, The Lancet [Internet]. 4 d´ ec 398 (10316) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21) 02249-2 [cit´ e 5 oct 2023].

[39] Brighton Collaboration, COVID-19 AESI list 5th update – october 2022 [Internet], https://brightoncollaboration.us/covid-19-aesi-list-5th-update-october-2022/, 2022.

[40] J. Fraiman, J. Erviti, M. Jones, S. Greenland, P. Whelan, R.M. Kaplan, et al., Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults, Vaccine 40 (40) (2022) 5798–5805. Disponible sur: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283.

[41] T. Brosh-Nissimov, E. Orenbuch-Harroch, M. Chowers, M. Elbaz, L. Nesher, M. Stein, et al., BNT162b2 vaccine breakthrough: clinical characteristics of 152 fully vaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Israel, Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 27 (11) (nov 2021) 1652–1657.

[42] L. Brinkley-Rubinstein, M. Peterson, R. Martin, P. Chan, J. Berk, Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in prison after vaccination, N. Engl. J. Med. 385 (11) (2021) 1051–1052, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2108479 [Internet]. 9 sept.

[43] M. Bergwerk, T. Gonen, Y. Lustig, S. Amit, M. Lipsitch, C. Cohen, et al., Covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated health care workers, N. Engl. J. Med. 385 (16) (2021) 1474–1484, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2109072 [Internet].

[44] P. Nordstr¨om, M. Ballin, A. Nordstr¨ om, Effectiveness of covid-19 vaccination against risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death up to 9 Months: a Swedish total-population cohort study, Disponible sur: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol 3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410, 2021.

[45] H. Chemaitelly, L.J. Abu-Raddad, Waning effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, Lancet 399 (10327) (2022) 771–773, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22) 00277-X [cit´ e 6 avr 2022].

[46] A. Krug, J. Stevenson, T.B. Høeg, BNT162b2 vaccine-associated myo/pericarditis in adolescents: a stratified risk-benefit analysis, Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 52 (5) (2022) e13759, https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13759 [Internet]. 1 mai.

[47] K. Rahmani, R. Shavaleh, M. Forouhi, H.F. Disfani, M. Kamandi, R.K. Oskooi, et al., The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Front. Public Health 10 (2022) [Internet], https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh .2022.873596.

[48] T. Rohban, BNT162b2 vaccine booster and covid-19 mortality, N. Engl. J. Med. 386 (10) (2022) 1000, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2120044 (Internet). 10 mars.

[49] Fonds de recherche du Qu´ ebec, De l’importance de la conduite responsable en recherche en temps de pand´emie. https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/de-limportance-de-la-con duite-responsable-en-recherche-en-temps-de-pandemie/, 2020.

[50] C.S. Benn, F. Schaltz-Buchholzer, S. Nielsen, M.G. Netea, P. Aaby, Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: do adenovirus-vector vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects? iScience 26 (5) (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. isci.2023.106733 [Internet]. 19 mai.

[51] E. Robert, D. Rajan, K. Koch, A. Muggleworth Weaver, D. Porignon, V. Ridde, Policy dialogue as a collaborative tool for multistakeholder health governance: a scoping study, BMJ Glob. Health 4 (Suppl 7) (2020) e002161, https://doi.org/ 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002161.

[52] J.P. Sturmberg, Knowledge Translation in Healthcare – Towards Understanding its True Complexities; Comment on “Using Complexity and Network Concepts to Inform Healthcare Knowledge Translation, Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 7 (5) (2018) 455–458. https://dx.doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2017.111.

[53] J. Lexchin, J.C. Kohler, M.A. Gagnon, J. Crombie, P. Thacker, A. Shnier, Combating corruption in the pharmaceutical arena, Indian J. Med. Ethics 3 (3) (2018) 234–239, https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2018.022.

[54] S. Chattopadhyay, Corruption in healthcare and medicine: why should physicians and bioethicists care and what should they do? Indian J. Med. Ethics 10 (3) (2013) 153–159. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2013.049.

If you would like these blog posts to appear in your email stream,

please sign up to