Scientific truth is not reached by consensus, it is based on scientific evidence. Lysenko had near unanimous support for his disastrous theories.
Semmelweis was ridiculed and opposed for his life-saving hand-washing protocol. I'm sure the really bright bulbs here could come up with better examples but I think a good analog might be the medical establishment's multi-decade refusal to clearly acknowledge the dangers of smoking. As with the vaccines, the reasons were political and heavily influenced by financial conflicts of interest.
Here's an excellent summary:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK294310/"While 60% of physicians smoked in 1949, this figure declined to 30% by 1964 (
Garfinkel and Stellman 1976). Surveys of Massachusetts physicians during the 1950s found that by 1954 a majority of physicians (55% of smokers and 63% of nonsmokers) believed that "heavy smoking of cigarettes may lead to lung cancer" (
Snegireff and Lombard 1954, p. 1042)."
...(even the average doctor was aware of the potential links by the early 50s)
"Additionally, the tobacco industry's power as a source of revenue for many print publications influenced the content of smoking and health media coverage (
USDHHS 1989;
NCI 2008). After the broadcast advertising ban, cigarette advertising and marketing continued to grow, but shifted to print publications, outdoor billboards, sponsorship of sports, placement of brand implants in movies, and a number of other methods. According to
Advertising Age, the five major tobacco companies spent $62 million on magazine advertising in 1970, the year before the ban, but by 1976 they were spending $152 million (
Smith 1978). Some publications became highly dependent on this revenue. An article in the
Columbia Journalism Review noted a trend: "In magazines that accept cigarette advertising,"
Smith (1978) wrote, "I was unable to find a single article, in seven years of publication, that would have given readers any clear notion" of the nature and extent of the health effects of cigarette smoking, including news magazines like
Time and
Newsweek. As late as 1983, a
Newsweek 16-page special supplement on "personal health care" prepared with AMA failed to explicitly identify cigarette smoking as a major health hazard. The same issue carried 12 pages of cigarette advertisements worth about $1 million in revenue for the magazine (
Warner 1985a). An analysis of magazine coverage over a 22-year period found that a sample of major magazines reduced their coverage of smoking and health issues by 65% in the years after the broadcast advertising ban went into effect (
Warner and Goldenhar 1989), and another study found that magazines which accepted an average amount of cigarette advertising were 38% less likely to carry stories on smoking and health than magazines that did not accept cigarette advertising (
Warner et al. 1992).
Although many individual physicians rapidly accepted the smoking and health findings, AMA, the leading professional medical organization, took more than two decades to take a clear stand on the issue. In 1964, after the release of the report of the Surgeon General, AMA published a 7-page brochure for the general public titled "Smoking: Facts You Should Know," which described a range of "suspected health hazards" but portrayed experts as divided on the issue (
AMA 1964). At the time, AMA officials also opposed federal efforts to mandate warning labels, advertising restrictions, or other public education efforts around smoking (
Haseltine 1964). Historians have noted that AMA's position on smoking during the 1960s and 1970s was influenced by its need for support from congressional allies, particularly in southern tobacco-growing states, as well as its opposing Medicare and proposed national health insurance legislation during those years (
Kluger 1996;
Rothstein 2003; Proctor 2011)."
...
The definitive, unequivocal verdict from the AMA on smoking didn't come out until 1978. That report, generously funded by the tobacco industry, took 14 years to produce. The point is this: the experts sometimes get it wrong for prolonged periods of time, and it is not for a lack of knowledge. Politics, institutional inertia, and industry capture are the causes and we have all these factors in spades with the so-called Covid vaccines. Read RFK Jr's book on the chilling effect that the disbursement of government grants and industry research money has on what research gets done, what gets published, etc. It is not the least bit surprising that the institutions you list don't want to break rank with their peer organizations or the government authorities on this issue. Their financial survival depends on toeing whatever line the Pharma Industrial Complex puts before them. What IS surprising is the staggering number of doctors worldwide who have taken a stand, often at great cost to their careers.
