ALERT: Demand That CBS Not Air Outdoor Anti-Vaccine Ad!

[godless dave]

Exactly. There is no deceptive information in their ad, so people are not exposed to their misinformation unless they go to the website.

the website which the ad promotes.

If the problem is their website, then petition against that. Why petition against an ad that doesn't contain any lies rather than the website that does?

Because the ad promotes the website.

The ad itself only tells people to be informed.

No, it tells people to go get incorrect information from specific websites.

Quite possibly. I would expect people to go to google and search for information on vaccines, not necessarily remember and go directly to the website advertised on a billboard.

Then you have zero understanding of human nature.

I see the choice they will make being who they will believe about vaccines. Do you think they will have more trust for the people who tell them 'do the research yourself and make up your own mind' or the people who are actively trying to suppress an advertisement that advocates that?

Except the advertisement doesn't advocate that, it advocates the opposite.

 

[Beth]

Exactly. There is no deceptive information in their ad, so people are not exposed to their misinformation unless they go to the website.

the website which the ad promotes.

Yes. I'm glad you agree with me that people are not exposed to their misinformation unless they go to the website.

If the problem is their website, then petition against that. Why petition against an ad that doesn't contain any lies rather than the website that does?

Because the ad promotes the website.

That doesn’t answer my question. Why petition against the ad promoting the website rather than the website itself?

The ad itself only tells people to be informed.

No, it tells people to go get incorrect information from specific websites.

Could you quote that part of the ad for me? I must have missed it. I only recall that the website was listed, not any instructions to go there or a description of what they would find.

Quite possibly. I would expect people to go to google and search for information on vaccines, not necessarily remember and go directly to the website advertised on a billboard.

Then you have zero understanding of human nature.

You don’t think that anyone will see the billboard and google for information, instead everyone influenced by it will just go straight to the advertised site and believe everything they read there. And you think I have zero understanding of human nature!

I see the choice they will make being who they will believe about vaccines. Do you think they will have more trust for the people who tell them 'do the research yourself and make up your own mind' or the people who are actively trying to suppress an advertisement that advocates that?

Except the advertisement doesn't advocate that, it advocates the opposite.

Could you quote that part of the ad for me? I must have missed that part.

 

[CMacDady]

Signed, but with the Ad already starting to show its face will it make any difference?

 

[Beth]

Signed, but with the Ad already starting to show its face will it make any difference?

I would expect that they would have to continue the ad for the duration of the contract. It might cause CBS to decide not to renew the contract or accept any other ads from that customer.

 

[Estellea]

Yes, I'll agree it's a fairly liberal definition, although it's only attempted censorship. It isn't censorship unless you are successful. You have every right to advocate for such, just as I have every right to object and hope that you are not successful.

I think it's really cute that you're defending "rights" so vehemently, but some "rights" aren't to be had. Do you defend cigarette advertising targeted to teens?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that only members of a protected class can legitimately object to their messages being suppressed? Who are those protected classes of people and why aren't the rest of us allowed to make such complaints?

You and they can complain all you like, but you, like they, don't have much of an argument when their objective is clear and it isn't for promoting "informed consent". It's nothing more than a smoke-screen for disseminating false information to erode a significant fraction of public health.

Exactly. There is no deceptive information in their ad, so people are not exposed to their misinformation unless they go to the website.

If their intent was not to deceive, again I ask, why aren't there legitimate websites listed? Your defence of their advert is really naive. They want people to go to their websites; it's their source of income.

Oh my, an accusation of wilful ignorance because I don't give traffic to their website and don't want to read lies about the effect of vaccination. If the problem is their website, then petition against that. Why petition against an ad that doesn't contain any lies rather than the website that does?

Because an individual has to seek their websites out and that is bad enough. I protest their ad for the very same reason I protest direct-to-consumer advertising and cigarette ads aimed at teenagers. You are trying to make an argument based solely upon their ad without any regards to where that ad is intended to lead people. Protest their website? Ya, like trying to get pee out of a pool. I do my share to counter their "information".

No, it's not much of an argument. I'm just explaining why I don't endorse the tactic and won't sign the petition. I use a relatively liberal definition of censorship and I don't want to support such an action.

Then don't sign and be content with that action, don't try to apply censorship when they really aren't being censored at all. Wilful idiots can still go to their websites without the advert.

Exactly. There are no lies in the ad which is why I see no reason to try to get it off the air.

As godless dave stated, you grossly overestimate the intelligence of the general public, particularly when it comes to health issues.


It isn't? Because I did watch the ad and that is what it appears to be to me. They may have ulterior motives, but we're discussing the ad itself and a petition to get it taken off the air. The ad itself only tells people to be informed. When people object to such an ad, it makes them look bad. The objectors come across as trying to suppress important information that parents ought to know. IMO, that activity won't inspire trust in the official recommendations for vaccinations.

Quite possibly. I would expect people to go to google and search for information on vaccines, not necessarily remember and go directly to the website advertised on a billboard. I see the choice they will make being who they will believe about vaccines. Do you think they will have more trust for the people who tell them 'do the research yourself and make up your own mind' or the people who are actively trying to suppress an advertisement that advocates that?

They may have ulterior motives? How about there is no doubt that they do? Again, your refusal to know exactly who is sponsoring this ad inhibits your ability to mount a convincing defence of their actions. Not to mention, you really don't understand how stupid people really are. Again, if Mercola and BLF were really interested in informing people, then why just include their own websites? Even though it is completely false balance, they conspicuously left off any legitimate websites.

Este

 

[Alan]

What is your position on vaccine safety and efficacy, Beth?

 

[vwgub]

Certainly. But they can't do it in an advertisement or they risk running afoul of the law.

Since they aren't selling anything I don't think it is against the law for them to lie.

 

[Beth]

What is your position on vaccine safety and efficacy, Beth?

I'm for it!

 

[Beth]

Since they aren't selling anything I don't think it is against the law for them to lie.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the lies are illegal in anything but political ads. I don't understand that, but I've come to accept that the law is often beyond my understanding.

 

[vwgub]

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the lies are illegal in anything but political ads. I don't understand that, but I've come to accept that the law is often beyond my understanding.

I can't tell if this reply is serious or not. If it is, lies are only illegal in very special circumstances such as perjury and in trade.

 

[Beth]

I think it's really cute that you're defending "rights" so vehemently, but some "rights" aren't to be had. Do you defend cigarette advertising targeted to teens?

Depends what you mean by defend. Do I approve it of it? No. Do I think it should be illegal? Also no.

You and they can complain all you like, but you, like they, don't have much of an argument when their objective is clear and it isn't for promoting "informed consent". It's nothing more than a smoke-screen for disseminating false information to erode a significant fraction of public health.

Is it? Do you really think their primary goal is the erosion of public health? I don't. I think they are wrong, but I see no reason to assume that they have malicious motivations.

If their intent was not to deceive, again I ask, why aren't there legitimate websites listed? Your defence of their advert is really naive. They want people to go to their websites; it's their source of income.

I'm not disagreeing with you on these points. I'm saying that I don't find that sufficient cause to support trying to get their ads off the air. I think we simply disagree on some core values like the value of living in a society with open access to media so that anyone is able to get their message out versus the value of living in a society with a minor dip in vaccination rates - assuming their ad will be effective in getting people to reconsider vaccinating their kids.

Because an individual has to seek their websites out and that is bad enough. I protest their ad for the very same reason I protest direct-to-consumer advertising and cigarette ads aimed at teenagers. You are trying to make an argument based solely upon their ad without any regards to where that ad is intended to lead people.

That's correct. I'm not judging their ad by whatever motivations they may have placing it or for the expected (or hoped for) outcome of the ad. I'm judging their ad by what it actually says. When you start talking about trying to get something off the air, that's what I'm going to examine in making a decision as to whether I agree or not.

Then don't sign and be content with that action, don't try to apply censorship when they really aren't being censored at all. Wilful idiots can still go to their websites without the advert.

I never said they were being censored. I said, and I will continue to say, the petition to get their ad off the air is an attempt at censorship. As far as willful idiots going to their website, you accused me of willful ignorance for NOT having gone to their website. It seems that there is simply no pleasing you.

As godless dave stated, you grossly overestimate the intelligence of the general public, particularly when it comes to health issues.

Perhaps. Do you think the general public is more likely to trust the people who create those websites or those who are trying to get ads advocating they should do their own research and making their own choices taken off the air?

It isn't? Because I did watch the ad and that is what it appears to be to me. They may have ulterior motives, but we're discussing the ad itself and a petition to get it taken off the air. The ad itself only tells people to be informed. When people object to such an ad, it makes them look bad. The objectors come across as trying to suppress important information that parents ought to know. IMO, that activity won't inspire trust in the official recommendations for vaccinations.

They may have ulterior motives? How about there is no doubt that they do?

I have doubts about everything and everybody. This is, after all, a skeptics website.

Again, your refusal to know exactly who is sponsoring this ad inhibits your ability to mount a convincing defence of their actions.

I'm not trying to defend their actions. I'm defending their right to place an ad in a public space when there is no reasonable objection to the content of the ad itself.

Not to mention, you really don't understand how stupid people really are.

Again with the denigration of intelligence of the average person to figure out the right course of action for themselves!

I don't think contempt for intelligence of the average person is a winning strategy to convince people to do whatever it is you want them to do. If you want people to voluntarily choose what you think is the best option for them and for society, whether it's not smoking cigarettes or choosing to vaccinate their children, I think it's best to start with a modicum of respect for them.

 

[Beth]

I can't tell if this reply is serious or not. If it is, lies are only illegal in very special circumstances such as perjury and in trade.

I do know that there are truth in advertising laws - i.e. it's illegal to tell bald-faced lies in ads. Whether it's actually legal for the political ads to lie, I don't know but that is what I've heard. I'm not clear on exactly what is and isn't covered by the truth in advertising laws.

 

[Alan]

I'm for it!

You're for vaccine safety and efficacy? Okay, but what do you think of their current status?

It seems like you dodged the question, so I am asking for a clarification.

 

[Beth]

You're for vaccine safety and efficacy? Okay, but what do you think of their current status?

It seems like you dodged the question, so I am asking for a clarification.

I think they are well worth the minor risk. My kids are vaccinated. So am I. I'm not always in agreement with 100% of the recommendations though. For example, we chose to use the killed polio vaccine back when the oral vaccine was the one recommended.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes. I'm glad you agree with me that people are not exposed to their misinformation unless they go to the website.
That doesn’t answer my question. Why petition against the ad promoting the website rather than the website itself?

And who would we petition for that?


The problem with the website is it is insidious. It is slick. It looks legit, they just want you to have the facts so you can make an informed decision.

It is propaganda of the most sly kind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think they are well worth the minor risk. My kids are vaccinated. So am I. I'm not always in agreement with 100% of the recommendations though. For example, we chose to use the killed polio vaccine back when the oral vaccine was the one recommended.

And the vaccine was available, someone obviously didn't disagree because they prescribed it for your kids.

The killed vaccine has always been recommended for adults not previously vaccinated. If pediatricians thought many parents at the time would choose the killed injection series over the easily administered drops, the recommendation would likely have been to offer all parents a choice. But that just wasn't the case.

And the live vaccine has never been a risk to the kids getting the vaccine. The risk only happens AFTER the vaccine virus changes in the gut of the recipient.

In addition, there was a reason for choosing wider rapid coverage one gets with the live vaccine. Those conditions changed when the vaccine program was successful. So the changed recommendation was not because someone finally noticed the risks with the live vaccine. The change in the recommendation came when the wild virus was so well controlled the vaccine virus posed a greater risk. You are making a false assumption that the killed vaccine was always better. The analysis of risk benefit changed as the epidemiology of the disease changed.


If you are conflating your decision with the so called free choice encouraged by the anti-vaxers, you couldn't be more wrong. Free choice is fine if it is based on valid information. But it is not so great when the people promoting free choice are doing so with a lot of false information.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Beth,

I doubt anyone 'round these parts is ever going to think I'd be pro-censorship or anti-free speech, but just in case, I'll make it clear. The liberal strain in my make-up is pretty solid. I mean, I vehemently hate - but fully support the free speech rights of - Phred Phelps.

This is not a free speech/censorship issue, though. They are not opining that chocolate is better than vanilla or that Republicans should all have to wear beanies with propellers on them (be still my heart!). They are advertising their websites full of poisonous and harmful information.

If I'm not mistaken, there are links above showing that anti-vaxers (or those with anti-vax sentiments if you prefer to think of the Anti-Vaxers as an organized group with upper case letters) have been proven to have been the cause of a number of outbreaks of rather horrific diseases - yes, traced back to a kid who wasn't vaccinated.

The information they're promoting is harmful. It can kill. And it can kill not just the persons making the conscious/informed decision (let's assume some are adults and not children to fit into that mold), but it can kill the kid on the bus next to their kid. My kid. Your kid. (OMG won't someone think of the children? And this time I mean it.)

They are lying, for whatever reason, and they are using faulty science. How about I start the Bepla Society (whom I just invented)? Their billboard ads say, "You don't need to take drugs to get HIGH. Learn about flying at www.bepla.com ". Nothing harmful in that, right? And then the Bepla website will instruct them as to how with just a good running start off of a 55 storey building, they will be flying in no time. All with fat testimonials from pseudo-engineering types.

Is that really free speech? If I want them to not spread that message and exercise my free speech in an effort to pressure a corporation into not allowing them to promote their dangerous nonsense, do you really think I'm promoting censorship?

Their lies SHOULD BE illegal. But apparently the Surgeon General and/or CDC don't have such powers of prosecution, and getting someone to word some legislation directly addressing this sort of thing has not even been proposed. Since we can't prosecute them, we ought to do everything we can to get out the counter message and not worry about "stooping to" drowning them out, ... by whatever means are at our disposal.

 

[Beth]

And the vaccine was available, someone obviously didn't disagree because they prescribed it for your kids.

Yes, although our pediatrician did have to special order it in just for us.

The killed vaccine has always been recommended for adults not previously vaccinated. If pediatricians thought many parents at the time would choose the killed injection series over the easily administered drops, the recommendation would likely have been to offer all parents a choice. But that just wasn't the case.

My understanding at the time was that the recommendation for the oral vaccine had to do with the overall benefit for society rather than the benefit to the children receiving it. It’s been quite a long time though, so my memory might have failed me. My baby at that time is now 23!

If you are conflating your decision with the so called free choice encouraged by the anti-vaxers, you couldn't be more wrong. Free choice is fine if it is based on valid information. But it is not so great when the people promoting free choice are doing so with a lot of false information.

Well, their opinion is the same but with reversed ideas about who is presenting the false information. I’m in agreement with you about what information is true, but I don’t agree that the decision I made is somehow different from the free choice being promoted by the ad we’ve been discussing. As I see it, the difference is that you don’t disapprove of that particular decision.

 

[AlBell]

They are lying, for whatever reason, and they are using faulty science. How about I start the Bepla Society (whom I just invented)? Their billboard ads say, "You don't need to take drugs to get HIGH. Learn about flying at www.bepla.com ". Nothing harmful in that, right? And then the Bepla website will instruct them as to how with just a good running start off of a 55 storey building, they will be flying in no time.

The probability of that happening is 100%, although the flight will be short and the landing fatal.

Vaccine studies wish they were at 100% certainty levels; they are not, which is why these problems are still being discussed.

My wife still suffers from effects that 'seem' attributable to a mid 70's swine flu shot. And others like her do exist.

All with fat testimonials from pseudo-engineering types.

That I doubt would be forthcoming; proposed repeal of the law of gravity seems a stretch.

ps. If CBS displays the ad, perhaps you can all hold your breaths 'til your faces turn blue: that'll show 'em!

DEMAND! ROFL.

 

[Beth]

Beth,

I doubt anyone 'round these parts is ever going to think I'd be pro-censorship or anti-free speech, but just in case, I'll make it clear. The liberal strain in my make-up is pretty solid. I mean, I vehemently hate - but fully support the free speech rights of - Phred Phelps. This is not a free speech/censorship issue, though.

I have to disagree with you here. A petition to get an ad removed not because the content is objectionable but because they don’t like the ideas the sponsor promotes, that’s an attempt to suppress those ideas.

Clearly, plenty of people consider the ideas that particular sponsor promotes to be adequately dangerous to make suppression of those ideas an attractive idea for many. I feel differently. I support the free speech rights of not just the Westboro Baptists, but also pornographers, anarchists, athiests and even anti-vaxers.

They are not opining that chocolate is better than vanilla or that Republicans should all have to wear beanies with propellers on them (be still my heart!). They are advertising their websites full of poisonous and harmful information.

Innocous ideas need no defense. It is the right to promote what others see as 'harmful ideas' that must be defended.

Many religious people feel that websites supporting atheism are full of poisonous and harmful information. They petition to have ads promoting atheist organizations pulled.

Supporters of a strong defense often feel that war protestors are aiding and abetting the enemy and would like to see the words and ideas of those people suppressed.

I think that the value of living in a society when anyone can promote any idea they like is of sufficient benefit to tolerate all of those people and many more besides.

If I'm not mistaken, there are links above showing that anti-vaxers (or those with anti-vax sentiments if you prefer to think of the Anti-Vaxers as an organized group with upper case letters) have been proven to have been the cause of a number of outbreaks of rather horrific diseases - yes, traced back to a kid who wasn't vaccinated.

I’m aware of that. I agree that such outbreaks are a direct result of people choosing not to vaccinate. Where I disagree is the idea that suppression of organizations that promote that is an appropriate way to deal with that problem.

The information they're promoting is harmful. It can kill.

No. All information can do is persuade people to act.

And it can kill not just the persons making the conscious/informed decision (let's assume some are adults and not children to fit into that mold), but it can kill the kid on the bus next to their kid. My kid. Your kid. (OMG won't someone think of the children? And this time I mean it.)

Many thousands of brave men and women over the past few centuries have voluntarily sacrificed their lives in order to create a society where everyone has the freedom to say what they like regardless of what others may think of their ideas. The price of living in freedom is not cheap; it costs many lives.

They are lying, for whatever reason, and they are using faulty science. How about I start the Bepla Society (whom I just invented)? Their billboard ads say, "You don't need to take drugs to get HIGH. Learn about flying at www.bepla.com ". Nothing harmful in that, right? And then the Bepla website will instruct them as to how with just a good running start off of a 55 storey building, they will be flying in no time. All with fat testimonials from pseudo-engineering types.

I would not approve of it, but I would support your right to do so.

This also brings me to another issue that hasn't been discussed regarding this ad. What do you suppose the effectiveness actually is? I wouldn't expect your Bepla society website to influence people into jumping off of 55 story buildings. I do think that the anti-vax websites may lead some parents not to vaccinate, but I have serious doubts that many people would act differently if the ad runs versus doesn't run. I don't see a petition to get the ad pulled as being very effective in getting more people to vaccinate their children.

Is that really free speech?

Yes. It is.

If I want them to not spread that message and exercise my free speech in an effort to pressure a corporation into not allowing them to promote their dangerous nonsense, do you really think I'm promoting censorship?

Yes, I think you are. Just as I think the religious petitions to get pro-atheism ads removed are an attempt at censorship.

Their lies SHOULD BE illegal. But apparently the Surgeon General and/or CDC don't have such powers of prosecution, and getting someone to word some legislation directly addressing this sort of thing has not even been proposed. Since we can't prosecute them, we ought to do everything we can to get out the counter message and not worry about "stooping to" drowning them out, ... by whatever means are at our disposal.

I simply don’t agree that the ends justify the means in this case. What they are doing is harmful. I don’t dispute that. What I’m saying is that attempts at suppression rather than competition with their ideas is not a tactic I will support.