An excellent reminder from Sarah Despres that removing school mandates can have real, serious costs.

"When contemplating changes to vaccine policy, political leaders should take into account the health and economic implications. Ladapo did not. He acknowledged that his office had not modeled disease outcomes before announcing his new policy. His announcement came against a backdrop of an increase in whooping cough cases in Florida, which are up 81% over last year, not to mention a spate of measles outbreaks nationwide. Ladapo demonstrates a lack of concern about the health of the Floridians he was hired to protect.

Amid reports that the federal government plans to dramatically reduce the childhood vaccination schedule, more states may follow Florida’s lead. Other policymakers should not be so cavalier if they are going to re-evaluate vaccine requirements. Here are four questions all policymakers, regardless of whether they are supportive of vaccines, should be prepared to answer if they are considering changing vaccine requirements.

1. Will the new policy lead to decreasing immunization rates and increasing vaccine-preventable illness?

To date, no state has ever completely eliminated vaccine requirements, so there is no research on the effects of elimination of requirements on disease rates. Policymakers, however, can look to the research on changes to exemption policies, which have shown that tightening those policies did lead to an increase in immunization uptake. They can also look to research that has shown that areas with greater numbers of exemptions to vaccine requirements do see more disease. Right now we are witnessing a growing measles outbreak in South Carolina, a state that has seen a marked increase in vaccine requirement exemptions over the last 10 years."

Need to share vaccine resources now? The Vaccine Resource Hub offers hundreds of free, vetted, and culturally relevant vaccine resources—available in over 50 languages and a range of formats, from social media graphics to factsheets.

Visit the Vaccine Resource Hub to explore the latest resources. You can also upload your own resources to help our national network of organizations share accurate information. Find out more at VaccineResourceHub.org.

"Le véritable défi épistémologique du XXIe siècle n'est pas de lutter contre la désinformation, mais de maintenir et améliorer nos meilleures normes et institutions épistémiques."

Les croyances humaines ne sont pas toujours fondées sur la vérité. En effet, comprendre pourquoi certaines personnes parviennent parfois à adopter des croyances exactes est bien plus complexe que de simplement se demander pourquoi elles croient des choses fausses.

🌍 Les sociétés modernes, avec leurs institutions complexes, permettent une production de connaissances fiables. Mais ce système est fragile et repose sur des normes qui ne sont pas innées. Si ces institutions faiblissent, l'ignorance et les erreurs reviendront rapidement.

🔎 La vérité n'est pas évidente. Nous vivons dans un monde où la médiation sociale, les biais cognitifs et les intérêts personnels influencent nos perceptions et nos croyances. Pourtant, dans un monde aussi influencé par l’information et la confiance, il est surprenant que nous arrivions parfois à des conclusions justes.

🧠 Nous devons revoir notre approche de l'épistémologie sociale. Au lieu de considérer la désinformation comme un phénomène isolé, il est plus pertinent de comprendre que la recherche de la vérité est une exception fragile et rare dans l’histoire de l'humanité.

Passionnant article de Dan Williams, Dr en philosophie.
Résumé assisté par IA

#connaissance #épistémologie #vérité #société #désinformation #science

https://lnkd.in/eaptfNfA

Did you know that in almost all cases, measles resolves on its own?

Usually only rest and hydration are necessary. If treatment is needed the options include high-dose vitamin A, immune globulin, and the antiviral medication, ribavirin.

For more measles facts visit picdata.org/measles

#vaccines | 12 comments on LinkedIn

66 % des personnes interrogées lors d’une enquête Ipsos ont cru à une fake news. Pourtant, la majorité d’entre nous croyons être capables de faire le tri entre le vrai et le faux.

𝗟𝗮 𝗱𝗲́𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝘂𝗰𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀 𝗾𝘂’𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲́.
𝗘𝘁 𝗰’𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝗻 𝘃𝗿𝗮𝗶 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲̀𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲́ 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲.

Pendant longtemps, on a voulu croire que les fake news ne concernaient qu’une petite frange de la population : les “mal informés”, les “anti-science”, les “extrêmes”.

C’est rassurant… mais c’est faux.

Ce que je constate, et que beaucoup d’experts ont confirmé lors de la mission menée pour le ministère de la Santé, c’est que 𝗹𝗮 𝗱𝗲́𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝘂𝗰𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲 :
le grand public, les parents, les jeunes, et même les professionnels de santé.

Pas parce qu’ils manquent d’intelligence.

Mais parce que 𝗹’𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝘂𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗱’𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲̀𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝗹𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲́𝗲, 𝗲́𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝘁 𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗲́𝗲.

La réalité, c’est qu’il existe aujourd’hui un 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝘁 𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 :
- les rapports des autorités (HAS, ANSES…) sont très techniques, parfois difficiles même pour les soignants ;
- les médias généralistes simplifient parfois trop vite, au risque de déformer ;
- la communication scientifique institutionnelle manque souvent de lisibilité ;
- et pendant ce temps, la désinformation, elle, est rapide, claire, émotionnelle… donc efficace.

Le résultat se voit partout : inquiétudes infondées, mythes persistants, incompréhensions, perte de confiance.

C’est précisément ce vide que j’essaie de combler à mon échelle : 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗮 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗵𝗶𝗿, répondre aux questions réelles des gens, donner des repères fiables, et expliquer sans infantiliser.

Mais personne ne peut faire ce travail seul.

La lutte contre la désinformation n’est pas un sujet “annexe”. C’est un enjeu de santé publique majeur, qui nécessite 𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲́𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲́𝗲𝘀, de la formation, et une vraie prise en compte des besoins du public.

Plus on sera nombreux à travailler ensemble, chercheurs, institutions, communicants, soignants, plus on aura d’impact.

Et surtout : plus on redonnera confiance.

Alors, en 2026, je continue ce combat contre la désinformation. Avec rigueur, mais pas sans humour. Vous me rejoignez ?

Public opinion and trust declining. Questions about his management methods.

Anecdotes vs science. While Dr Philip McMillan depends on the first to create misinformation, the second shows that COVID has no incidence in increase cancer risks. Maybe for Xmas, we should have asked that such misinformation from the guy would pulled out of LinkedIn … Imagination is not science. And his claims are not what the science is showing us. There is no turbo-cancers related to COVID. NONE…

The 3 biggest issues to watch in vaccine policy in 2026

It Examining the complex interplay between natural immunity, vaccine efficacy, and public health mandates, it dissect prevailing disinformation to establish a clear, evidence-based understanding of individual and collective protection. It is clarifying how scientific consensus informs policy, separating fact from pervasive misinformation.

“Enough. I am TIRED of these MTHFR myths on this MTHFR’ing internet.” 🐍✈️
– Samuel L. Jackson (probably)

Here’s the REAL script:
🧬Everybody’s got MTHFR, variants are common and usually harmless.
🥗 Getting enough folate matters more than the type you take.
💉MTHFR variants do not make vaccines unsafe.
💊 No detox hacks or pricey supplements needed because the science just isn’t there.

So let’s stick to the evidence-based information.
Because misinformation?
That’s the real bad mother- (you know the rest). 😉

cc: William Senapedis Leslie Treece
THE BIGGEST THANK YOU to the brilliant Kevin Klatt, PhD, RD for reviewing the content on this complicated and nuanced topic! G.O.A.T. 🐐

Sources:
https://lnkd.in/euqrYwSA
https://lnkd.in/e5UNxsbY
https://lnkd.in/e7dryrZX
https://lnkd.in/edUFwQxa
https://lnkd.in/exiGzzpH
https://lnkd.in/e4FM-AWe
https://lnkd.in/eJWxEeFh
https://lnkd.in/ecm28EmZ
https://lnkd.in/gyiqSzi6
https://lnkd.in/eDJ7in7G
https://lnkd.in/eiXYUAWk

📌 Trust is like health – you truly notice it only when it disappears. Trust is the fabric that holds societies together. How do we nurture it? How do we move beyond institutional trust toward distributed trust — an ecosystem where scientists, research funders, media, policymakers, and citizens work together?

Last week, during the one-day conference “Strengthening Public Trust in Science” hosted by ANR, the French National Research Agency and Science Europe, Dr Sylvie Briand and I had the privilege of engaging with stakeholders committed to these questions.

Some key Takeaways:
✔ Public trust in science is fragile yet essential for evidence-based policymaking. While overall trust remains high, signs of erosion are visible across disciplines.
✔ Science is an iterative process, not a set of facts - communicating about the nature of 'scientification' is critical.
✔ Scientists provide evidence, not advice. Science offers one critical perspective among many - alongside economic, social, cultural, and political considerations - that policymakers weigh when shaping decisions.
✔ Citizen and participatory engagement is reshaping science, bringing diverse experiences and knowledge sources into the conversation.

Let's keep the dialogue going!

Mohamed Elsonbaty Ramadan , MSc Claire Giry Lidia Borrell-Damian Agata Gurzawska Rebecca Veitch Didier Pourquery Romain Huret Francisco Javier Moreno Fuentes Emelie de Jong Jerry Sheehan Karen Fabbri Carthage Smith Tina D Purnat Marie Bombin Gerardo Zamora Thidar Pyone Rita Tawile Safaa Nofal Aziza Nasirova Catherine Daribi Adam Strobeyko Adam Talsma Tim Nguyen Ioana Ghiga Tim Corrigan Catherine BERTRAND-FERRANDIS Sarah Hess Charlotte Germain-Aubrey Supriyaa Bezbaruah, PhD Arianna Flores Corral Michelle Hahn-Baker Dharmaveer Shetty Hon. Keith Martin MD, PC

Casey Husser, MD makes an interesting point here. One that Robert Malone does not seem to fully grasp. Like if when at ER in an emergency situation a parent would substitute his own ideas to the expertise of the treating physician. No, you want at any time the experience and expertise of a trained doctor, not that of pseudo-fake experts that are pushing misinformation on vaccines. Decision is shared for consent but not for facts and science. If individuals would be making decision, patients would die all the time. It is the doctor`s knowledge, expertise and experience that keeps you alive at such time. On another point socialism is the greater good for all. America is a socialist country as well, but sadly only for the greater good of the richest elites. This must change.