Re: "I have to wonder what brought Professor Ioannidis to be less skeptical than he ought regarding the risks and harms of the vaccine (bioweapon)."
It seems to me Ioannidis has always been less skeptical than he ought about vaccines...
In the scientific and medical establishment vaccines are a blessed thing, it is pure heresy to question them...and a career killer...ask Andrew Wakefield.
Consider an article by John Ioannidis, published in 2016: Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)/
In this article Ioannidis says: ‘‘I felt that I had to take sides in this evolution. This is
why I thought that prevention is a great idea, trying to find ways to make people to improve their health, wellness, and well-being at large [38]. After all clinical epidemiology was first defined as ‘‘the basic science of prevention’’ [39]. Yet, I am aware that prevention (e.g., unnecessary screening) can also sometimes harm more people than therapeutic medicine. ‘‘There are also so many quacks ranging from television presenters and movie stars turned into health trainers [40] and pure science denialists (e.g., climate, HIV, vaccine denialists, and religious fundamentalists) that one has to tread carefully. We should avoid a civil war on how to interpret
evidence within the health sciences when so many pseudoscientists and dogmatists are trying to exploit individuals and populations and attack science. However, too much medicine and too much health care is already causing harm."
See his reference there to "pure science denialists" - including 'vaccine denialists'...
There's just some 'science' that mustn't be questioned...e.g. The blessed Church of Vaccination.
Re: "I have to wonder what brought Professor Ioannidis to be less skeptical than he ought regarding the risks and harms of the vaccine (bioweapon)."
It seems to me Ioannidis has always been less skeptical than he ought about vaccines...
In the scientific and medical establishment vaccines are a blessed thing, it is pure heresy to question them...and a career killer...ask Andrew Wakefield.
Consider an article by John Ioannidis, published in 2016: Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)/
In this article Ioannidis says: ‘‘I felt that I had to take sides in this evolution. This is
why I thought that prevention is a great idea, trying to find ways to make people to improve their health, wellness, and well-being at large [38]. After all clinical epidemiology was first defined as ‘‘the basic science of prevention’’ [39]. Yet, I am aware that prevention (e.g., unnecessary screening) can also sometimes harm more people than therapeutic medicine. ‘‘There are also so many quacks ranging from television presenters and movie stars turned into health trainers [40] and pure science denialists (e.g., climate, HIV, vaccine denialists, and religious fundamentalists) that one has to tread carefully. We should avoid a civil war on how to interpret
evidence within the health sciences when so many pseudoscientists and dogmatists are trying to exploit individuals and populations and attack science. However, too much medicine and too much health care is already causing harm."
See his reference there to "pure science denialists" - including 'vaccine denialists'...
There's just some 'science' that mustn't be questioned...e.g. The blessed Church of Vaccination.