Yes. The journal clearly learned nothing about conflicts of interest from the Wakefield fiasco.https://twitter.com/JDtheDJ2004/status/1425185323965878274 …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
100% agree.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wasn't the Lancet also responsible for the original denial of the lab leak hypothesis at the urging of the guy who was paying the lab responsible for the very research? Didn't he get a bunch of friends to sign a letter the Lancet printed which basically shut the door on it?
-
Trust the experts!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Already this disposition had been brewing in France. Seems inevitable to me that as the vaccine schedule grew so quickly for kids that there’d be a pushback.
-
Sentiment was out there, but the Lancet played a huge role in validating & mainstreaming it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you went to any meeting of parents of autistic children from around 2009-2015 you could not cite any facts that would convince them that vaccines did not injure their children.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund was created in 1986 as a result to 1970s concerns around damage. It has paid out $4.6 billion since then. Vaccine skepticism was around before the Lancet study, but I agree it was the single most harmful thing to vaccine acceptance.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.