• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Offit's book - making the news

Perhaps Paul Offit is not the best spokesperson to use to convince those sceptical of the safety of vaccines?

Offit isn't apologizing. He acknowledges that he got a "small percentage" of the $182 million Children's Hospital of Philadelphia received when it sold its interest in future royalties for the vaccine RotaTeq. (He won't give a precise amount, but says "it's like winning the lottery.") And he has served as both a paid and unpaid member of a scientific advisory board at Merck, which makes RotaTeq.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
Perhaps Paul Offit is not the best spokesperson to use to convince those skeptical of the safety of vaccines?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but if you're going to go around indicting everyone who makes money at what the do, who are you going to cite? Specifically, in the case of vaccines, who? If all you can impress the "skeptical" with is the purity of your spokesmen, you're really going to have a tough time. Look at the MDs they have arrayed against vaccines; are they all doing this just for the good vibes?

In he end, you have go with the data, the evidence, and you have to convince them that that's true as well.
 
shadron said:
Perhaps, but if you're going to go around indicting everyone who makes money at what the do, who are you going to cite? Specifically, in the case of vaccines, who? If all you can impress the "skeptical" with is the purity of your spokesmen, you're really going to have a tough time. Look at the MDs they have arrayed against vaccines; are they all doing this just for the good vibes?

In he end, you have go with the data, the evidence, and you have to convince them that that's true as well.
Click to expand...

Is there no one else available who doesn't have vested interest measured in millions of dollars to present the evidence and promote vaccine safety?

This isn't solely about evidence or data, it's about public relations.

"Scientist on payroll of Merck claims their products are safe."

"Scientist on payroll of ExonMobil claims GW is not influenced by man."

Many members of the public do not have the time or ability to judge the quality and balance of the data. For these people the perceived purity of the source has a far higher weighting than it does for you.

Having said that, perhaps the PR gurus in public health have got their strategy wrong. Rather than simplifying the message to:

"<Insert disease here> is something to be feared. <Insert intervention here> to reduce your fear."

to play on people's irrationality, they could instead demonstrate a bit of honesty and humility when promoting public health recommendations.
 
Sure, but nearly everyone is employed by someone. Unless you want to trust journalists or disinterested lawyers or "PR gurus in Public Health", you have to tap an expert who is likely working in the field either directly or as a government or independent regulator/scientist/consultant, all of whom can clearly be accused, rightly or not, of being biased to promote his own paycheck.

Tell me, who is impartial enough to be trusted in he global warming debate? Who can you trust to give you good advice in selecting between robotic or manned space missions? Who else can tell you about vaccines reliably?

How do you establish a "pure" source? Is the CDC pure enough, for example? The IPCC? I want to see an example of an "honest and humble" public health recommendation. I suspect if such existed we wouldn't be having these issues.

Good PR may be good for the common man on the street, but it will never satisfy the informed, nor will it convert the true believers. Unfortunately, good PR and good science cannot hardly ever be coexistant.
 
Perhaps someone with better knowledge could clarify, but I don't see anything that suggests that Offit was employed by Merck. Merck produces the vaccine, but after all, someone would do this if it's worth manufacturing. One can guess that Merck funded his research at least in part, though I have not seen anything that confirms this, or how much of the research funding came from Merck. But is there any reason to suppose that this influenced either his choice of research field or his results? He's a pediatrician working for a pediatric hospital, working in his field of expertise. Why should the realities of how medical research is funded in the United States make him a poor spokesman?

There's an article about Offit's latest book in today's Rutland Herald. I was struck by the remark that Offit will not be making a book tour because he's received too many death threats, and that the chief of vaccine research at the Mayo Clinic has had threats against his children. Nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom