$cience Correspondent part two

Last time we revealed how a single headline published in The Guardian that advocated for more vaccine use in the UK actually had very clear financial ties to Sanofi, Janssen, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If you haven’t already, go back and read the first article as this will make much more sense if you do.

Sanofi, Janssen and the Gates Foundation have major financial interests in pushing more Covid-19 vaccines, and wouldn’t you know it, that’s exactly what the paper and subsequent news stories recommended! So what happens if we turn our attention away from the actual study, and start to examine the conduits through which it arrived in the media?

Read on.

As ever, paid subscriptions and shares keep The Digger going. The audience we get is the audience you create.

---

With the authors of the study which underpinned the article investigated, it’s time to turn our attention to the quotes used in The Guardian piece. The article sought comment from a number of UK academics, and broadly those comments bolstered the main thrust of the editorial: more vaccines, including for children, are a good thing.

First, we have Professor Stephen Griffin, a virologist at the University of Leeds. In the context of reducing long covid, Griffin argued that “Kids under five are at heightened risk after Sars-CoV-2 infection compared to primary schoolchildren – especially under ones – and there is no reason why they should be exposed to infection when a very good, safe vaccine is available.”

It’s worth pointing out that in the ‘normal’ sphere of health policy, vaccinating under 5’s against Covid-19 is a fairly strident position to hold. It’s not the current position of the JCVI or even the NHS, so that puts Griffin somewhat at odds with the currently accepted wisdom on these products. It’s a legitimate opinion to hold, it just happens to be one that I and many others disagree with. I don’t begrudge Griffin for holding this perspective but the reason his opinion is relevant and interesting to us here is because it was amplified by some press business conducted via The Guardian. It’s that process of amplifying one perspective whilst forcing others into the fringe that interests me. So how does a Professor of Cancer Virology end up in a conversation about vaccinating children against a seasonal virus?