ArticleHEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues2024
Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners.
Article in HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Covid-19 "vaccine uptake" in postsecondary education a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2024Article
- Vaccines and the Eye: Current Understanding of the Molecular and Immunological Effects of Vaccination on the Eye.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- COVID-19 mortality paradox (United StatesWorld journal of experimental medicine · 2024Review
- Self-Deception in Clinical Nursing Practice: A Concept Analysis.Clinical nursing research · 2024Article
- There is no such thing as a Ministry of Truth and why it is important to challenge conventional "wisdom" - A personal view.New microbes and new infections · 2023Article
- How Scientists View Vaccine Hesitancy.Vaccines · 2023Article
- A targeted approach to vaccine hesitancy.Oxford open immunology · 2023Article
- Protecting public's wellbeing against COVID-19 infodemic: The role of trust in information sources and rapid dissemination and transparency of information over time.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The controversy over vaccines has recently intensified in the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, with calls from politicians, health professionals, journalists, and citizens to take harsh measures against so-called "anti-vaxxers," while accusing them of spreading "fake news" and as such, of endangering public health. However, the issue of suppression of vaccine dissenters has rarely been studied from the point of view of those who raise concerns about vaccine safety. The purpose of the present study was to examine the subjective perceptions of professionals (physicians, nurses, researchers) involved with vaccines through practice and/or research and who take a critical view on vaccines, about what they perceive as the suppression of dissent in the field of vaccines, their response to it, and its potential implications on science and medicine. Respondents reported being subjected to a variety of censorship and suppression tactics, including the retraction of papers pointing to vaccine safety problems, negative publicity, difficulty in obtaining research funding, calls for dismissal, summonses to official hearings, suspension of medical licenses, and self-censorship. Respondents also reported on what has been termed a "backfire effect" - a counter-reaction that draws more attention to the opponents' position. Suppression of dissent impairs scientific discourse and research practice while creating the false impression of scientific consensus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.