© Schneyder Mendoza / AFP
The COVID-19 pandemic enabled mRNA vaccines to be used on a large proportion of the population (in France the uptake rate was 93% with similarly high uptake rates in many other countries), showcasing their potential to combat infectious diseases, including cancer. However, the survey found that only a small majority of the participants (51%) supported the idea that "Messenger RNA is a promising technology for tomorrow's medicine", despite the high uptake in the country.
Only 15% of survey respondents strongly agreed with the view that "In the event of a new epidemic, mRNA vaccines will be useful" with 31% agreeing, 35% don't know, 10% disagreeing and 9% strongly disagreeing. Similarly, there was no strong consensus that it was "Thanks to the mRNA vaccines that the COVID-19 epidemic was bought under control", with 11% strongly agreeing with this statement while 14% strongly disagreed with the statement; as for most of the questions, the don't knows were the largest group (32%).
A question about the long-term side-effects of mRNA vaccines was the only question where a clear majority of respondents supported the statement posed, with 62% of respondents agreeing with the statement that "There is still a lot we don't know about the long-term effects of messenger RNA vaccines". Among these respondents, 15% were unvaccinated, 50% had doubts despite vaccination and 35% were vaccinated and comfortable with it. Notably, 78% of these respondents supported vaccination overall and trusted science and doctors, similar to the general population. However, they exhibited lower confidence in Government, health agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. This group, representing nearly two-thirds of the French population, displayed scepticism towards political and economic influences on science during the pandemic.
Those expressing doubts were not categorically anti-vaccine but questioned aspects of the technology and governance surrounding it. Such scepticism doesn't inherently reject science but reflects public unease navigating science's intersection with politics and economics. Labelling dissenting views as 'anti-science' oversimplifies complex dynamics. Policy responses should move beyond information dissemination, addressing systemic issues and integrating diverse perspectives to foster trust and informed decision-making in public health.
Dr. Maggie Cooper is a pharmacist and research scientist.
Reader Comments
In terms of manipulation: polls can artificially show any numbers they want through the data selection establishing a "consensus" that the people can belong to, polls can explore how linguistic phrasing controls or "nudges" the response, polls can explore how effective their overall programming has manipulated the public view.
"Vaccine-hesitancy" is their neuro linguistic programming that is supposed to shame the unvaccinated into "following the science". We can call it bioweapon clarity to avoid the injection. We still have to be aware of "shedding" because we don't know what it is.
Who's questioning the efficacy, who wants more experimental fluid injected into them, life expectancy after injections, all of it, is moot observations.
Team Uninjected are now the long term control group. We represent 50% of humanity for this insidious experiment.
The local obituaries tell you all you need to know.
Watch and wait... its not going away.
I know a man whose job is picking up and delivering bodies. He would definitely concur.
But I also don't trust the official statistics of how many people let themselves be injected with this muck.
After all they always want to create the illusion that the majority goes along with whatever new control mechanism they cooked up. The Asch conformity experiments showed how people go along with the majority even if it contradicts their own eyes.