I guess there’s much more to come of this kind to support the de-vaccination campaign. They will probably use lots of predatory journals or use the websites of the NIH or CDC to propagate such nonsense.
A brief note - this is all true and when we look at studies we should note who wrote and paid for them, but we should also assess whether the study itself appears to have integrity or merit. To some degree ignoring studies because their authors are terrible is an ad hominem argument.
It's not strictly an ad hominem argument to point out that a journal has been specifically created to spread misinformation. This is definitely true of the journal in question.
That aside, an article on "vaccine harms" that only selects a population of children with established issues is garbage.
I agree that most people can and should safely ignore anything produced by this journal or similar sources. But it’s not a good look to dismiss it just because of the source, at least for epidemiologists. At least they’re not getting into PubMed; but that’s why RFK wants to dismantle PubMed.
While I appreciate the lecture, I'd just like to cut this short by pointing out my comment on the journal was a specific reply to a comment on journal types
That said, its OK to dismiss it at source as it was safe to dismiss tobacco company "research committees" on cigarette harms in the 50s & 60s
Comments
https://www.nvic.org/law-policy-state/vaccine-laws
That aside, an article on "vaccine harms" that only selects a population of children with established issues is garbage.
That said, its OK to dismiss it at source as it was safe to dismiss tobacco company "research committees" on cigarette harms in the 50s & 60s