Asked on May 29, 2022
Do not question the origin of a text posted on social media, do not question the origin of a press article, and do not present yourself with a press article. the Daily Meeting. It would be “A warning in the form of questions about the terrible dangers posed by Pfizer / Moderna mRNA vaccines against COVID-19”. The text, titled “Messenger RNA Vaccine: Study Sounds Alarm” echoes „Of a study, extremely serious and documented, without conflicts of interest of the authors, published on April 15 in ScienceDirect”which would report “Results published in the Official Journal of the Chinese Society of Toxicology (FCT), an internationally renowned toxicology journal” according to which „Vaccines” à sars-CoV-2 mRNA causes: the creation of a modified mRNA with complex effects, especially unpredictable; the sustained manufacture of Spike protein; a change in innate immunity »and so on
Comme did not report more users quickly – and a journalist from the Everyday – this text, actually published this May 27 in the Reunion newspaper, is not a journalistic article. He is actually tired of the Courrier des lecteurs page. In the printed version, le nom de la rubrique appears very clearly at the top of the page. In the version circulating on the line, this important precision is hidden.
The study to which reference is made is known to readers of Check the news, since we had dedicated an article to it in early May. Published online on April 15 on the magazine’s publisher’s website Food and chemical toxicologythis alarmist publication has been the subject of much criticism, pointing to the essentially speculative nature of the argument, as well as the authors’ lack of expertise in the many topics they cover.
Even in readers’ mail, the publication of a text promoting such a controversial article, without a journalistic perspective, in the Daily Meetingquestioned many netizens.
A text that has been circulating for at least a dozen islands
The published letter appears to have been signed by a certain Bruno Bourgeon, a reunited nephrologist. a “Accustomed to the letters of the readers of the Everyday», as noted in August by one of the journalists of the title in an article covering a demonstration against the health pass, in which this doctor participated. In the last nine months, at least twenty letters signed in his name have been published on page 2 of the Everyday, on topics that are primarily related to issues of ecology. However, the team Check the news was surprised to recognize, in this prose, a text that circulates less in a day on various Internet sites, presented another signature.
Except for the introduction of the letter, most of the paragraphs are in fact copied and pasted into a text signed by a man named Thibaut Masco, author of a letter circulated on subscription, baptized “Uncensored Health”, which presents itself as a stores “New alternatives free from lobbies”. Contacted by Check the newsBruno Bourgeon confirms that he has taken up the text of “Uncensored Health”, “By adapting it to be a little more proselytizing towards the Reunion population.” More the Daily did not take up in full the text I sent them, it will be published on my association’s website. “ The nephrologist tells us that he “I haven’t read the reviews of this article yet.” We need it, though “When someone says something that’s not in the mainstream movement, I tend to think that the criticism behind it is already well-directed, often by people who may have conflicts of interest.”. The nephrologist was summoned to the College of Physicians in December for controversial health measures, but no sanctions were imposed on him – due, according to Bourgeon, “A procedural defect”.
“A committed reflection on scientific information”
Kevin Bulard, Editor of the Meeting dailyexplains to Check the news to have been informed of the controversy during the zi. «The Daily Meeting was created in 1976, in a very particular context, in a context of locked information. The right had all the newspapers, in which nothing could be put but the dominant voice – 90% of the Reunion population, mostly Creoles, were left out. What a diary was created exactly to fight censorship and, from the beginning, to be free of expression. Readers’ mail is a space of freedom of expression, and we are very attached to it. But obviously, it’s not without limits. The editorial board is based on the law: all mail related to defamation, incitement to racial hatred, all forms of discrimination, appeals to violence, and so on That’s our compass. Readers’ letters are positions of opinion, opinions, which are free speech, but this is not a reflection of the editorial line of the newspaper. “ The manager states that The Daily “published letters from readers who are in favor of vaccination … and that have earned us dumps of insultsReferring to „A letter from a professor at the University of Reunion Care established a link between the fourth wave in the French overseas departments, the low vaccination rate, and the illiteracy rate … Care is taken to ensure that publishes, but one can be wrong. We do not always have the scientific knowledge to validate the proposals. Mais nous we have the necessary legal knowledge to know what you need to know on the right of way or step. “
The editor notes that he received a letter on May 30 from a researcher commenting on the article in Food and chemical toxicology. “We will remind you”, he explains to us. Regarding the precaution of seeking outside opinion or the advice of scientific editors on such subjects, Kevin Bulard admitted that “These are debates that are going on in the drafting of the Everyday. There has been a lot of talk about it lately. The newspaper organized a professional health and wellness show, and it was an opportunity to master things on the table. There are indeed very divergent opinions on how to deal with scientific information in the newsroom, and we are in full reflection on how we are going to improve. Last week and the week before, everyone defended their arguments on the subject, it gave rise to sometimes lively exchanges, and it was agreed to ask, and to establish a method. Until now, we have been on the journalistic treatment of scientific information and health issues more generally, and we will include the readers’ mail in this reflection. It is a small regional daily newspaper. If we are not at the top, we are trying to improve. ”
Activists “use newspaper as propaganda tool”
The controversy of the weekend resonated strongly in the writing of the Everyday. Edouard Marchal, trade union delegate of the SNJ du journal section, judge “That medical and scientific counter-truths cannot be allowed to spread so casually.” The answer that it was published in the readers’ courier cannot be satisfied. The responsibility of the publisher is obviously to have control over the editorial content. And this is true for readers’ mail, a fortiori when it is placed on page 2 as is our case, and it is enriched with a photo … ” He also believes that “The Readers’ Mail page is unquestionably used cynically by anti-vaccine activists, who use the newspaper as a propaganda tool.”
The present controversy “Follows a number of reservations, which we have already expressed on the editorial line, and on the way in which movements hostile to vaccination are treated.” In the department where we are above the national average vaccination rate, we think we have an increased duty of vigilance. Admittedly, we are not specialist journalists, we do not all have the necessary scientific culture to address these issues, but we need to do our job of verifying and clarifying the information. The abscess must be punctured in favor of this incident. The thing that can be blamed on us is certainly that we did not react to these issues earlier, perhaps because we did not want to create tensions between divergent opinions in the newsroom. But today, I think we can no longer keep quiet: it is our reputation as journalists that is tarnished today. We pass this kind of text for public gossip. ”concludes Edouard Marchal.
[Mise à jour du 31/05/22 à 17h15 : au cinquième paragraphe, correction d’un pluriel («une manifestation» au lieu de «des manifestations», et «à laquelle» au lieu de «auxquelles».]