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

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

The only reason the pediatrician would have had to "special order" the vacine is because it was not routinely given as the primary vaccine series for children. I gave IPV routinely in the public health clinic I worked in in the late 70s. Like I said, it was indicated for adults with unclear polio vaccine histories in the household of an infant who would be shedding vaccine virus. We routinely asked parents about the vaccine history of adults in the household and adult caretakers (usually the grandparents) when giving the infants live polio vaccine. There would have been no reason for a pediatrician to stock vaccines that were going to expire before they were needed.

As for the benefit to society, yes, that's the difference. But again, look at the decision making process. When wild polio virus is circulating, the benefit of using live vaccine is, it is faster and one gets wider coverage in whole population more efficiently. So the risk of the rare vaccine virus associated disease is far less than the benefit one gets by preventing the wild virus.

Once the wild virus was eliminated (there's still a risk of reintroduction) in this case from the Western hemisphere, the risk of mutated vaccine virus disease exceeded the risk of wild virus disease. The risk benefit ratio reversed making the decision to use IPV the preferred choice. The deciding principles remain consistent.

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.

Surely you agree that people are welcome to their own opinions but not their own facts.

I go back to a point I made earlier that got lost here. Do you think selling the proverbial snake oil is a matter of free speech? Should people be able to sell fake cancer cures to desperate people?

The FDA and the FTC are organizations that define what are a fraudulent medical claims. The problem with that is, neither agency regulates fraudulent medical claims not involving direct marketing of a product. In addition, certain 'legal' products such as homeopathy are not regulated as they should be, because of legal loopholes.

Because the regulatory agencies are inadequate to protect the public from medical fraud, some of us are working to address this deficiency. Thus you have the JREF campaign to get homeopathy products off the market or at least labeled as making fraudulent claims. Some in the medical community are equally concerned about fraudulent information being disseminated about vaccines. The fraudulent information is not about opinion or free speech. Fraudulent medical information has significant consequences.

I get it that anti-vaxers see the decision to vaccinate their children as a free choice issue. But I totally disagree with your claim the issue here is about a matter of medical opinion and to each his/her own. The medical community has an obligation, not just to compete with bad medicine, but to prevent people from being misled by fraudulent information. Whether people believe the fraudulent information is not relevant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

No, this is not how vaccine recommendations are made. As with ALL appropriate medical decisions, one looks at risks/costs vs benefit/risk of not acting.

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

You and your wife may believe this. That doesn't make it true.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

So in my field the science consists of "ideas". Are the 'facts' in engineering just 'ideas' as well?

It does seem like this is the crux of the matter here.

 

[Beth]

As for the benefit to society, yes, that's the difference.

Yes, I understand that. The decision making process for policy recommendations may differ significantly from the decision making process for individuals. That is a major reason I consider it important to allow choice in the matter.

Surely you agree that people are welcome to their own opinions but not their own facts.

Depends on what you are terming 'facts' and 'opinion'. There is not a bright line between two, but a rather large gray area. In regards to vaccines, I agree that the evidence available clearly shows that the small risk is well worth the benefits. On the other hand, different people may consider the same facts I have yet weigh the risks differently and arrive at different conclusions. That's a difference of opinion, not of fact.

I go back to a point I made earlier that got lost here. Do you think selling the proverbial snake oil is a matter of free speech? Should people be able to sell fake cancer cures to desperate people?

I'm in support of the laws that require truth in advertising. Making false claims and bilking people out of their money is and should be illegal.

OTOH, making vague claims that don't specify anything is another matter. There is a responsibility on the part of the consumer to be aware of what they are purchasing. If they are aware of that and still choose to spend their money on dubious cancer cures, they yes, I think that should be legal. Do you disagree? Should homeopathic medicines be banned, or merely properly labeled so that people can know what they are buying?

The FDA and the FTC are organizations that define what are a fraudulent medical claims. The problem with that is, neither agency regulates fraudulent medical claims not involving direct marketing of a product.

I do see this as a problem. I'm not quite sure what the most appropriate response is, but I would like to see some regulation of medical claims, even if only requiring a disclaimer that the claims made have not yet been substantiated or a 'seal of approval' to sites that provide accurate information. I'm not sure how much of an impact that would have on this issue though. As I've said before, I see the problem being one of trust. People who don't trust/believe the government recommendations on this issue are unlikely to trust some other government agency that tells them which sites are telling the truth.

Because the regulatory agencies are inadequate to protect the public from medical fraud, some of us are working to address this deficiency. Thus you have the JREF campaign to get homeopathy products off the market or at least labeled as making fraudulent claims. Some in the medical community are equally concerned about fraudulent information being disseminated about vaccines. The fraudulent information is not about opinion or free speech. Fraudulent medical information has significant consequences.

Yes, it does. There are also significant consequences to restricting or suppressing ideas that are deemed 'harmful to society'. I see the issue as a conflict between those core values.

I get it that anti-vaxers see the decision to vaccinate their children as a free choice issue. But I totally disagree with your claim the issue here is about a matter of medical opinion and to each his/her own.

Was that a claim I made? I don't recall stating that and I'm not sure what you are referring to. I certainly think it's a matter of opinion whether or not vaccinations are worth the benefit. I wouldn't term that a medical opinion though. I think the risks and benefits are fairly well established, but everyone is allowed an opinion on what values they place on those risks and benefits.

The medical community has an obligation, not just to compete with bad medicine, but to prevent people from being misled by fraudulent information. Whether people believe the fraudulent information is not relevant.

Okay. I don't see a problem with any of this. It's only when people, in their zeal to prevent misinformation from being spread, start attempting to suppress those who are promoting the misinformation that I have a problem with it. I can understand why they think it is a good idea, but that is the point at which I will no longer support their activities.

 

[ehcks]

Okay. I don't see a problem with any of this. It's only when people, in their zeal to prevent misinformation from being spread, start attempting to suppress those who are promoting the misinformation that I have a problem with it. I can understand why they think it is a good idea, but that is the point at which I will no longer support their activities.

So you're against people preventing others from making obvious demonstrable lies? The kind of lies that directly kill people?

That kind of speech is not applicable to the first amendment.

Deliberate misinformation should be prevented.

 

[Beth]

So in my field the science consists of "ideas". Are the 'facts' in engineering just 'ideas' as well?

It does seem like this is the crux of the matter here.

Depends. There are facts in both fields. There are ideas in both fields. What precisely are you considering a 'fact' here?

 

[AmandaM]

Beth, I think you've made a very interesting point about freedom of speech and petitions to have certain types of speech removed. You made me think long and hard about what effect petitions of this sort have on my interpretation of first amendment rights. I won't look at any petition like this quite the same again, so thank you for that!

That said, I have come to the conclusion that I simply disagree with you on whether or not this particular instance is similar to a restriction on free speech. But I do appreciate you bringing it up.



I went to the site in the ad. And since I was just asking about Whooping Cough, I checked out the link.

Although this site claims to neither advocate or oppose vaccinations, here is what the site tells me about whooping cough and my baby:

Holistic health care approaches to help manage the symptoms of whooping cough disease include chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, diet and vitamin therapy, including supplemental vitamin D and C.



And although the site claims to be objective, here is another paragraph under whooping cough:

Since 1982, the co-founders of NVIC have been concerned about the lack of scientific studies investigating the biological mechanisms and high risk factors for pertussis vaccine, which has long been associated with reports of injury and death in more than 60 years of medical literature. Acknowledgement of biodiversity and genetic variation between individuals argues for a national scientific research agenda, which responsibly examines the biological factors that predispose some individuals to responding adversely to vaccination, including pertussis vaccination, and suffering brain and immune system damage or death.

If I hadn't already read Paul Offit's book and I wasn't aware of the nature of the vaccine "Controversy" I would be HORRIFIED to read this site. It's a laundry list of warnings to be "informed" about the side effects and adverse reactions, but nowhere on the site does it explain the chances of my baby actually HAVING those reactions, and nowhere does it mention the benefits of being vaccinated.

I consider this to be "false advertising" -- it's scare tactics, without putting those risks into context. You can't assume that you or your child will actually HAVE any of those side effects.

If I have a headache and I believed that I might actually have all the listed side effects (such as "Constipation; diarrhea; dizziness; drowsiness; excitability; headache; loss of appetite; nausea; nervousness or anxiety; trouble sleeping; upset stomach; vomiting; weakness") well, I'd probably never take another Tylenol again.

My doc put me on Levothyroxin for pregnancy-induced hypothyroidism. I looked it up. Side effects include weight loss, tremor, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps, nervousness, irritability, insomnia, excessive sweating, increased appetite, fever, changes in menstrual cycle, sensitivity to heat, and temporary hair loss. There. Now I'm informed about the risks of taking the stupid pill. But since I'm not a physician, I see no reason to argue with my doctor when she tells me that these "risks" are outweighed by the benefits to my baby.

Being informed is one thing, but what these sites really seem to want me to do is ARGUE with my doctor, on something she is infinitely more knowledgeable about than I am.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you familiar with Mercola and with the National Vaccine Information Center?

All I know about them is what I hear about them here.
I would say it is better than the alternatives. I like the truth in advertising laws. I also like the freedom that allows people to say whatever they want on the internet. It does place a burden on people doing research to vet their sources, but I think that's a reasonable burden and was true even before the internet was around....

Here's an example of what one finds when one opens the door and looks inside the innocent appearing, "we just want you to make an informed choice" web site of the NVIC:

A Transcript of a talk given by Kihura Nkuba at the National Vaccine Information Center's
"Third International Public Conference on Vaccination" November 7-9, 2002 - Arlington, Virginia, aired on C-Span 2 on November 7, 2002.

Our next speaker, known in the pan-African world as Kihura Nkuba, which means "one who handcuffs lightning and puts thunder in jail", is founder of Greater African Radio and president of the East African World Broadcasters Association, and director of the Pan-African Center for Strategic and International Studies. Several years ago he began hearing from villagers who were being subjected to repeated forced live oral polio vaccinations despite reports of injuries and death among the children. On his radio program he began to speak out and questioned the safety of giving the children - especially children with HIV - so many live oral polio vaccinations, rather than giving them the safer "killed" polio vaccine used in the U.S. and Canada. Since that time, he tells me, he has been persecuted by the government, World Health Organization and UNICEF, and his radio station has been driven into bankruptcy. Kihura is appearing here at great personal and professional risk to tell his story. It is my great honor and privilege to introduce you to the recipient of the National Vaccine Information Center's humanitarian award - my good friend and colleague, Kihura Nkuba.

...So I was told by this preacher that when the government introduced the National Immunization Days in 1997, most of the children after vaccination started dying. The preacher told me that they had so much death that his cassock, that he wears to go and conduct the burial ceremony, got old. He said "I buried the children and my cassock got old."

In the same room there was one mother who had four children, and she hid one and took three other children for vaccination, and three children died and that one survived. Now when I went to do my presentation and I asked most of the people who were there - about two, three thousand people - each person had the same story....

Here's a page directly from the NVIC website:

Vaccine excipients or ingredients in trace or larger amounts depending on specific vaccine (partial list): lab altered viruses and bacteria; aluminum; mercury; formaldehyde; phenoxyethanol; gluteraldehyde; sodium borate; sodium chloride; sodium acetate; monosodium glutamate (MSG); hydrochloric acid; hydrogen peroxide; lactose; gelatin; yeast protein; egg albumin; bovine and human serum albumin; antibiotics; unidentified contaminants.

VACCINE REACTIONS MOTHER’S DESCRIPTIONS
High Fever (over 103° F) “His temperature was 105 degrees. I had to put cool towels on him to bring the fever down.”
Skin (hives, rashes, swelling) “There was a big, hot swollen lump at the site of the shot that stayed for weeks.”
High Pitched Screaming “It was a pain cry, a shrill scream and lasted for hours and nothing would help.”
Collapse/Shock “She turned white with a blue tinge around her mouth and went completely limp.”
Excessive Sleepiness “He passed out and we couldn’t wake him to feed or do anything for over 12 hours.”
Convulsion “Her eyes twitched, her chin trembled, her body went rigid and then would shake.”
Brain Inflammation “He just laid in his crib with his eyes wide open then would arch his back and scream and go unconscious. Now he has seizures.”
Behavior Changes “She won’t sleep or eat. She throws herself down and screams for no reason. She was sweet and happy and is now out of control. She changed into a totally different child.
Mental/Physical Regression “My 18 month old son stopped talking and walking after those shots. He developed severe allergies, constant diarrhea, ear infections and was sick all the time.”
Other reported vaccine reactions include: loss of muscle control, paralysis, regressive autism, asthma, arthritis, blood disorders, diabetes, Guillain Barre syndrome, sudden death.

During the past quarter century, the number of children with learning disabilities, ADHD, asthma and diabetes has more than tripled.
During the past quarter century, the number of doses of vaccines that pediatricians give babies and children under age 6 has more than doubled.
More than twice as many children have chronic brain and immune system dysfunction today than did in the 1970’s when half as many vaccines were given to children.

Outstanding Question: Is the atypical manipulation of the immune system with more and more vaccines in early life setting some children up for chronic disease and disability? Is less better?

This is fraud in its most sinister form because it is so slick.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Depends. There are facts in both fields. There are ideas in both fields. What precisely are you considering a 'fact' here?

From my above post:

• They present a false claim that polio vaccine has killed thousands of children as a fact.
  
• They mixed some factual information with some false information and presented the information in a way that states a totally false conclusion. For example:
  • The list of vacine reactions includes serious medical problems NOT related to vaccines.
    
  • While the number of diseases covered by vaccines has increased, the actual number of antigens in vaccines has decreased 100 fold because current vaccines are so much purer than older versions.
    
  • Vaccines do not manipulate the immune system in an atypical way.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Beth, would you object to a billboard that promoted "thinking" about women's rights and then directed people to a rape fantasy porn site?

While a bit of a hyperbole, that is in essence what the advert does. Proclaims a message, and then directs people to the antithesis of the intended message.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I understand that. The decision making process for policy recommendations may differ significantly from the decision making process for individuals. That is a major reason I consider it important to allow choice in the matter.

This is typical anti-vaxer propaganda. I'm surprised to hear you echoing it. It's more slick manipulation of partially true and partially false information. It's worth addressing here.

Policy decisions are indeed made on the basis of the whole population or society. That would be, for example, the decision to recommend a vaccine to all kids vs just some kids. The decision to include a vaccine in universal coverage is another example. It would also include the decision discussed above to recommend live or killed polio vaccine.

HOWEVER, the ONLY vaccine recommendation that we currently make which is geared SPECIFICALLY toward protecting someone else and not just the vaccine recipient is the adult booster for pertussis. ALL other vaccine recommendations benefit BOTH the individual and the group and the decision to recommend a vaccine is not based on the benefit of herd immunity. Even in the case of recommending population wide vs specific population targets for vaccinations is based on the benefit to the INDIVIDUAL.

It irks me to no end to hear that tripe repeated. If a vaccine recommendation describes the benefit of herd immunity, that does not mean herd immunity is the basis for a vaccine recommendation. It is true, when the % of susceptible people in a population falls below the threshold (different for different diseases) then people who cannot be vaccinated (too young or other medical reason) are put at risk. But that doesn't mean the vaccine recommendation is based on herd immunity goals.

Herd immunity goals might mean public heath gets more dollars to address a vaccine deficiency. But that would be because THERE IS AN OUTBREAK OF DISEASE AND PROMOTING VACCINATION IS THE WAY YOU DEAL WITH THE OUTBREAK!! The idea that public health has some sinister goal of sacrificing the individual child for the public good is outrageous.

Depends on what you are terming 'facts' and 'opinion'. There is not a bright line between two, but a rather large gray area. In regards to vaccines, I agree that the evidence available clearly shows that the small risk is well worth the benefits. On the other hand, different people may consider the same facts I have yet weigh the risks differently and arrive at different conclusions. That's a difference of opinion, not of fact.

There is no question among the scientific medical community that in this case the NVIC goes well beyond 'opinion' and well into into the territory of providing false information.

I'm in support of the laws that require truth in advertising. Making false claims and bilking people out of their money is and should be illegal.

Then how about making false claims that cause harm but profit is not the goal? Is "for profit" your criteria or is 'doing harm' your criteria?

OTOH, making vague claims that don't specify anything is another matter. There is a responsibility on the part of the consumer to be aware of what they are purchasing. If they are aware of that and still choose to spend their money on dubious cancer cures, they yes, I think that should be legal. Do you disagree? Should homeopathic medicines be banned, or merely properly labeled so that people can know what they are buying?

Yes and no. I'm convinced that consumer education is the best way to address much of the false advertising. It's akin to teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish.

OTOH, there are many things which society has a responsibility to address beyond just saying, buyer beware, tough luck if you don't. It is an accepted moral standard for society to prevent fraud, not to put all the onus on consumers. It is especially in society's best interest to prevent fraud when it comes to medical information and claims. And it is of the utmost importance to prevent fraud that injures children and other vulnerable members of society such as the desperate cancer patient.

You ask if homeopathy should be banned or just prevented from making false claims. We are talking about preventing the NVIC from disseminating false claims. So which is it? is disseminating false claims the same as selling a homeopathy cure, or is it the same as labeling homeopathy with the claim it works?

Considering the fact the Net is indeed full of false information, it is not realistic nor desirable to try to censor bad information on the Net. But banning the promotion of bad information via certain kinds of commercial advertising is within the norm for our society. I don't think 'profit' is the sole criteria for deciding which commercial promotion of false information should be prohibited. I think harm to society, especially harm to children and other vulnerable members of society is a better guiding criteria for intervening in 'free speech' when it comes to commercial promotion of false information.

I do see this as a problem. I'm not quite sure what the most appropriate response is, but I would like to see some regulation of medical claims, even if only requiring a disclaimer that the claims made have not yet been substantiated or a 'seal of approval' to sites that provide accurate information. I'm not sure how much of an impact that would have on this issue though. As I've said before, I see the problem being one of trust. People who don't trust/believe the government recommendations on this issue are unlikely to trust some other government agency that tells them which sites are telling the truth.

...Yes, it does. There are also significant consequences to restricting or suppressing ideas that are deemed 'harmful to society'. I see the issue as a conflict between those core values.

Problems such as those created by the anti-vaxer movement need to be addressed in multiple ways. There is no single approach that will likely be sufficiently effective by itself.

Preventing the amplification of dissemination of false information about vaccines is a worthwhile goal. It does not cross the line of preventing free speech. It is well within the historical moral norm of our free speech supporting society.

Was that a claim I made? I don't recall stating that and I'm not sure what you are referring to. I certainly think it's a matter of opinion whether or not vaccinations are worth the benefit. I wouldn't term that a medical opinion though. I think the risks and benefits are fairly well established, but everyone is allowed an opinion on what values they place on those risks and benefits.

This is not about the value one places on risks and benefits. This is about false claims of what those risks are, false claims about vaccine recommendations intended to put the group's health over the individual's, and false claims minimizing the risks of the diseases the vaccines prevent as well as claiming ineffective measures are effective in lieu of vaccines.

You have drunk the anti-vaxer Koolaid and you don't realize it. That's what I mean about the false information campaign being slick. You think it is about opinion without recognizing it is about the facts people are basing the opinion on. You've bought the lie this is about values and not about facts.

Okay. I don't see a problem with any of this. It's only when people, in their zeal to prevent misinformation from being spread, start attempting to suppress those who are promoting the misinformation that I have a problem with it. I can understand why they think it is a good idea, but that is the point at which I will no longer support their activities.

OK, just a little warning here, this is going to get a little philosophical.

Should we 'teach the controversy about evolution theory' in public school science classes just because people choose to reject the scientific information? Or should we teach the valid scientific basis for evolution theory? There is no controversy within the scientific community about evolution theory. It is a bait and switch debate point: "They" are suppressing any science that validates Biblical claims. "Teach the controversy". Claiming the scientific community is biased toward evolution theory and is arbitrarily rejecting contradictory evidence is a false claim.

In engineering programs should the 911 conspiracy theories that include totally baseless engineering claims be presented in an engineering class as if the invalid claims really were controversial? I'm not talking about bringing up the claims and discussing the related engineering science, I'm talking about giving equal value to the claims and calling it a valid difference of opinion, rather than a different opinion based on false underlying premises.

Is the Universe a real thing that can be investigated with the scientific process or do you not have confidence in that scientific process, meaning anyone's opinion is just as valid as the scientific evidence based opinion? The reason we know the scientific process gets us closer to the real version of the Universe and that human 'opinion', absent the evidence gathered from the scientific process, does not get us close to the real version of the Universe is the demonstrated success of the scientific evidence based opinion.

I suggest to you that you are giving an unjustified value to 'opinion' that is not based on scientific evidence. I think you are basing your conclusion on the false underlying premise that anti-vaxers merely have different values. It's easy to be convinced that is the case, especially the way the anti-vaxer position is presented. Just like the bait and switch argument about teaching evolution theory in public school science classes is framed as a debate about "teaching the controversy" when there is no controversy, the anti-vaxer bait and switch claim is that the issue is about parental rights and public health decisions over individual health decisions. This is not what the issue is about. The issue is about bad science and false underlying premises about vaccines and vaccine preventable diseases.

One can argue that the literature is inconsistent when it comes to putting a number to the risk of a vaccine preventable disease. Is it one death in 1,000 or 1 in 100,000? If all we were talking about was the information that the science of applying a risk value to a vaccine preventable disease is crude at best, then we would be talking about opinion. But it is not true that the diseases are harmless or they can be prevented with some vitamins. So when you claim the government is lying to you because they are in bed with Big Pharma and it's all about selling you a vaccine your child doesn't really need because there is profit in it, you are no longer talking just about opinion, you have added false information to your claim.

Yes, there is a range of opinons within the respective valid scientific communities. And influences on research and available information like profit motives are important and worthwhile to discuss. I'm not trying to deny that.

But what you don't seem to be recognizing, at least when it comes to the medical science, is that the range of valid science based opinions does not extend indefinitely out into baseless opinion (including the small percentage of bizarre thinkers who may have the education or professional credentials but adopt outlying convictions about the evidence). There is a difference between Dr Michael Behe who tried to prove irreducible complexity using the scientific process, and the Michael Behe who insists he can prove Biblical Creation no matter what the evidence. In other words there is a place for the innovative thinker in science but that doesn't mean one cannot tell the difference between an innovative thinker and a baseless thinker. There is a place for discussion of the risks and benefits of a vaccine and the influence of profit on public health policy. But that doesn't mean we should tolerate baseless conspiracy theories about government goals for vaccinating the population or the commercial dissemination of false information about vaccines and vaccine preventable diseases. There is a difference between different health care decisions based on values and health care decisions masquerading as a difference of values, when in reality they are based on underlying false information.

 

[pgwenthold]

Did you feel the same way about the groups that protested atheist ads on buses and billboards?

I agree with you by the way. I think that CBS is not obligated to agree to air their ad and you have every right to express to CBS why you think they should not. I just think that what you are asking CBS to do is censorship.

"Not giving someone use of their resources to spread information" is not censorship. If it is, that means they censor pretty much everyone all the time.

I want to advertise my overall coolness on CBS. Ooops, they won't let me because I don't have enough money to pay for the ad.

CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE TRYING TO SILENCE MY MESSAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Free speech" has nothing to do with whether a tv network should show or not show someone's commercial. If the government got involved, then there would be a problem.

 

[technoextreme]

Depends on what you are terming 'facts' and 'opinion'. There is not a bright line between two, but a rather large gray area.

Yes because when I get my facts I go to a man who thinks that you can live off the power of the sun and when faced with extreme pressure starts calling people names like fatty fat fat fat. Seriously, portraying him as a sane rational man who has ideas worth studying is like saying that Kevin Treudeau has great ideas.

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.

You just wrote off most of engineering and medicine using your dumb dumb logic.

 

[Beth]

Beth, I think you've made a very interesting point about freedom of speech and petitions to have certain types of speech removed. You made me think long and hard about what effect petitions of this sort have on my interpretation of first amendment rights. I won't look at any petition like this quite the same again, so thank you for that!

I want to reciprocate and thank you for that. I'm glad that you have found food for thought in my words. That's all I hope for.

Here's an example of what one finds when one opens the door and looks inside the innocent appearing, "we just want you to make an informed choice" web site of the NVIC:

I haven't been discussing the website. If you want to challenge what they have on their site and get them to remove false statements, you have my support for that. It's the ad, not the site, that is being petitioned to be removed and the ad doesn't contain false information.

From my above post:

• They present a false claim that polio vaccine has killed thousands of children as a fact.
  
• They mixed some factual information with some false information and presented the information in a way that states a totally false conclusion. For example:
  • The list of vacine reactions includes serious medical problems NOT related to vaccines.
    
  • While the number of diseases covered by vaccines has increased, the actual number of antigens in vaccines has decreased 100 fold because current vaccines are so much purer than older versions.
    
  • Vaccines do not manipulate the immune system in an atypical way.

Thank you for the examples.

I'm not sure I'd agree that those are all false statements presented as fact. Certainly they are presenting the information in a biased and misleading way.

I think the claim of 1,000's of deaths due to the polio vaccine was presented as 'opinion' rather than 'fact'. It was clearly anecdotal evidence, one person's personal observations and not verifiable. I class such information as being presented as opinion rather than fact.

The list of vaccine reactions that includes serious medical problems that are not known to be related to vaccines and then ask the question "Is the atypical manipulation of the immune system with more and more vaccines in early life setting some children up for chronic disease and disability? Is less better?"

Vaccines would certainly manipulate the immune system in an atypical way, although I would concur that the difference is unimportant to the health of the individual. So I don't consider this to be a false statement, although I'll agree in context it is misleading. Phrasing the relationship between vaccines and those serious problems as a question makes it clear that it isn't a fact, so I don't consider that a false fact but an opinion. You even admit that they are correct when they say that the number of diseases we vaccinate for has gone up. It is the context and implied meaning of that fact that you dispute.

While we agree that we are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, we do not seem to agree on what was presented as fact and what was presented as opinion.

For example, consider the phrase I bolded above. I feel that is a more accurate representation of the current state of knowledge regarding those relationships. It's quite difficult to prove that two things are NOT related and I don't think you can actually claim that they are not related without committing the same sin you are accusing them of - i.e. presenting opinion as fact. This isn't a problem for me, but it does illustrate the problem of separating facts from opinions in such text, even for people who are not attempting to mislead.

I see there are several more responses posted while I was composing this. I'll try to get to them as I can, but I'm think I'm going to have to limit my posting. I've pretty much said my piece, I'm short of time and I don't feel it necessary to keep repeating myself.

 

[technoextreme]

I haven't been discussing the website. If you want to challenge what they have on their site and get them to remove false statements, you have my support for that. It's the ad, not the site, that is being petitioned to be removed and the ad doesn't contain false information.

You lie. The ad is asking parents to learn more about vaccines by going to websites full of misinformation.

Vaccines would certainly manipulate the immune system in an atypical way, although I would concur that the difference is unimportant to the health of the individual. So I don't consider this to be a false statement, although I'll agree in context it is misleading. Phrasing the relationship between vaccines and those serious problems as a question makes it clear that it isn't a fact, so I don't consider that a false fact but an opinion. You even admit that they are correct when they say that the number of diseases we vaccinate for has gone up. It is the context and implied meaning of that fact that you dispute.

Actually, its a bold face lie. The number of diseases and pathogens that we have been exposed to from vaccines has ironically gone down despite the number of vaccines going up.

 

[Beth]

Yes, I understand that. The decision making process for policy recommendations may differ significantly from the decision making process for individuals. That is a major reason I consider it important to allow choice in the matter.

This is typical anti-vaxer propaganda. I'm surprised to hear you echoing it. It's more slick manipulation of partially true and partially false information. It's worth addressing here.
Policy decisions are indeed made on the basis of the whole population or society.
HOWEVER, the ONLY vaccine recommendation that we currently make which is geared SPECIFICALLY toward protecting someone else and not just the vaccine recipient is the adult booster for pertussis.

I have to disagree with you. I think the recommendation that newborns get vaccinated for HepB is also one of those. At any rate, my point is that policy recommendations are made for everyone, not for individuals. It’s not unreasonable that some people would differ on whether or not a particular vaccine is appropriate at a particular time for them or their child.
Calling that argument ‘anti-vaxer propaganda’ is not a refutation of it. It’s a solid argument for choice.

The idea that public health has some sinister goal of sacrificing the individual child for the public good is outrageous.

That wasn’t what I said nor was it implied in what I said.

Depends on what you are terming 'facts' and 'opinion'. There is not a bright line between two, but a rather large gray area. In regards to vaccines, I agree that the evidence available clearly shows that the small risk is well worth the benefits. On the other hand, different people may consider the same facts I have yet weigh the risks differently and arrive at different conclusions. That's a difference of opinion, not of fact.

There is no question among the scientific medical community that in this case the NVIC goes well beyond 'opinion' and well into into the territory of providing false information.

I’m not disputing that despite the fact that the examples you provided in post 89 did not illustrate that point very well. I’ll be happy to concede that their site is full of bad information. I don’t consider that sufficient justification to petition to have an ad – which does NOT contain false information – pulled off the air.

I'm in support of the laws that require truth in advertising. Making false claims and bilking people out of their money is and should be illegal.

Then how about making false claims that cause harm but profit is not the goal? Is "for profit" your criteria or is 'doing harm' your criteria?

Hmm. A good question. I’ll think on that. I’m going to clip of lot of what you’ve written. It’s really getting quite long.

OTOH, making vague claims that don't specify anything is another matter. There is a responsibility on the part of the consumer to be aware of what they are purchasing. If they are aware of that and still choose to spend their money on dubious cancer cures, they yes, I think that should be legal. Do you disagree? Should homeopathic medicines be banned, or merely properly labeled so that people can know what they are buying?

Yes and no. I'm convinced that consumer education is the best way to address much of the false advertising. It's akin to teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish.

This I agree with.

You ask if homeopathy should be banned or just prevented from making false claims. We are talking about preventing the NVIC from disseminating false claims. So which is it? is disseminating false claims the same as selling a homeopathy cure, or is it the same as labeling homeopathy with the claim it works?

I don’t consider either to be a good analogy. It would more akin to setting up a website that claims homeopathic solutions work but isn’t actually selling homeopathic remedies.

Considering the fact the Net is indeed full of false information, it is not realistic nor desirable to try to censor bad information on the Net.

It’s a serious problem, but I think it is one our society needs to grapple with. I agree that banning such information is not a good approach, but I think we desperately need a way for people to easily assess the quality of information on internet sites.

But banning the promotion of bad information via certain kinds of commercial advertising is within the norm for our society.

Yes. I haven’t claimed my attitude is the norm for our society.

I don't think 'profit' is the sole criteria for deciding which commercial promotion of false information should be prohibited. I think harm to society, especially harm to children and other vulnerable members of society is a better guiding criteria for intervening in 'free speech' when it comes to commercial promotion of false information.

It may be. But at present I would like to see our society more towards more freedom, not less, in that area.

...Yes, it does. There are also significant consequences to restricting or suppressing ideas that are deemed 'harmful to society'. I see the issue as a conflict between those core values.

Problems such as those created by the anti-vaxer movement need to be addressed in multiple ways. There is no single approach that will likely be sufficiently effective by itself.

I’m only arguing against one tactic - which I see as an attempt to suppress what those organizations are legally allowed to say and do.

Preventing the amplification of dissemination of false information about vaccines is a worthwhile goal. It does not cross the line of preventing free speech. It is well within the historical moral norm of our free speech supporting society.

I’ll agree that it has not yet crossed that line. My point is that an attempt at censorship is being made and supported by people here who normally would object to such attempts if it were against some other organization.

You have drunk the anti-vaxer Koolaid and you don't realize it. That's what I mean about the false information campaign being slick. You think it is about opinion without recognizing it is about the facts people are basing the opinion on. You've bought the lie this is about values and not about facts.

I don’t peruse the anti-vaxer sites nor am I familiar with the arguments they present, so I hardly think I’ve ‘drunk the anti-vaxer Koolaid’. It is your opinion that the issue is about facts and not values. You’ve presented no evidence that convinces me that it is, indeed, about facts and not values. I disagree. Of course, it may boil down to the difference between how you and I classify statements as facts versus opinions.

Okay. I don't see a problem with any of this. It's only when people, in their zeal to prevent misinformation from being spread, start attempting to suppress those who are promoting the misinformation that I have a problem with it. I can understand why they think it is a good idea, but that is the point at which I will no longer support their activities.

OK, just a little warning here, this is going to get a little philosophical.
Should we 'teach the controversy about evolution theory' in public school science classes just because people choose to reject the scientific information?

Yes.

Or should we teach the valid scientific basis for evolution theory?

Yes. The two are not mutually exclusive and teaching the controversy doesn’t mean we teach them as equally scientifically justified.

In engineering programs should the 911 conspiracy theories that include totally baseless engineering claims be presented in an engineering class as if the invalid claims really were controversial? I'm not talking about bringing up the claims and discussing the related engineering science, I'm talking about giving equal value to the claims and calling it a valid difference of opinion, rather than a different opinion based on false underlying premises.

No.

Is the Universe a real thing that can be investigated with the scientific process

Yes.

I suggest to you that you are giving an unjustified value to 'opinion' that is not based on scientific evidence I think you are basing your conclusion on the false underlying premise that anti-vaxers merely have different values.

Well, I certainly think that some anti-vaxers have different values – they are far more risk adverse to actions they voluntarily take than risk-adverse regarding actions they don’t take. Why do you think this is a false conclusion? Do you think that believing false information about vaccines is the only reason parents choose not to vaccinate? I agree that is the case for some people.

It's easy to be convinced that is the case, especially the way the anti-vaxer position is presented. Just like the bait and switch argument about teaching evolution theory in public school science classes is framed as a debate about "teaching the controversy" when there is no controversy,

No controversy! No that’s an opinion masquerading as a fact. There is no controversy in the scientific community. I live in Kansas, there’s plenty of controversy about it here!

The anti-vaxer bait and switch claim is that the issue is about parental rights and public health decisions over individual health decisions. This is not what the issue is about. The issue is about bad science and false underlying premises about vaccines and vaccine preventable diseases. Again, I have to disagree with you. All of those things are wrapped up in this issue and you can’t factually claim that those aspects are not part of it.

 

[Beth]

"Not giving someone use of their resources to spread information" is not censorship. If it is, that means they censor pretty much everyone all the time.

I want to advertise my overall coolness on CBS. Ooops, they won't let me because I don't have enough money to pay for the ad.

CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE TRYING TO SILENCE MY MESSAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This isn't about them demanding ad time without paying for it. At least, I don't think the ads are being run for free. If that is case, then I would withdraw my objections.

"Free speech" has nothing to do with whether a tv network should show or not show someone's commercial. If the government got involved, then there would be a problem.

Correct. It's not censorship because the tv network does or does not show their ad. The petition is attempted censorship because it seeks to keep a particular sponsor from being able to advertise at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I haven't been discussing the website. If you want to challenge what they have on their site and get them to remove false statements, you have my support for that. It's the ad, not the site, that is being petitioned to be removed and the ad doesn't contain false information.

This is a cop out and you may have noticed I'm not the only one who sees your position as making an arbitrary distinction. Your position, 'the ad only sends people to a misinformation website therefore the ad does not promote false information', is not realistic. It's not a supportable distinction. It's like saying a book full of misinformation is not really a book that promotes misinformation because there is no misinformation on the cover.

The ad promotes misinformation. The distinction you are making is arbitrary.

... I'm not sure I'd agree that those are all false statements presented as fact. Certainly they are presenting the information in a biased and misleading way.

I said, they mix facts with false claims. That's one way to make slick misleading propaganda.

I think the claim of 1,000's of deaths due to the polio vaccine was presented as 'opinion' rather than 'fact'.

No it wasn't. It was presented as fact.

It was clearly anecdotal evidence, one person's personal observations and not verifiable. I class such information as being presented as opinion rather than fact.

Yes, but it was presented as factual evidence. The speaker was introduced at the conference by the President of the NVIC as a knowledgeable person with reliable information about deaths from polio vaccine occurring in Uganda. Here's her personal recommendation once again for the speaker in question:

Kihura is appearing here at great personal and professional risk to tell his story. It is my great honor and privilege to introduce you to the recipient of the National Vaccine Information Center's humanitarian award - my good friend and colleague, Kihura Nkuba.

That is not an introduction suggesting the speaker is about to present mere anecdotal evidence.

The list of vaccine reactions that includes serious medical problems that are not known to be related to vaccines and then ask the question "Is the atypical manipulation of the immune system with more and more vaccines in early life setting some children up for chronic disease and disability? Is less better?"

Vaccines would certainly manipulate the immune system in an atypical way, although I would concur that the difference is unimportant to the health of the individual. So I don't consider this to be a false statement, although I'll agree in context it is misleading. Phrasing the relationship between vaccines and those serious problems as a question makes it clear that it isn't a fact, so I don't consider that a false fact but an opinion. You even admit that they are correct when they say that the number of diseases we vaccinate for has gone up. It is the context and implied meaning of that fact that you dispute.

Your knowledge of the medical science involved here reflects your own lack of knowledge about how vaccines work and demonstrates how the misinformation sounds factual to people who are not familiar with the science. This is particularly frustrating to people like myself who are knowledgeable about the science, because a sound bite is easy to communicate while complex immune system science is not.

Essentially your immune system is exposed to antigens by the millions during your lifetime. Your immune system does not just produce antibodies to pathogens, it produces antibodies to foreign proteins regardless if the proteins cause disease or not.

From Quackwatch:

Experts estimate that humans can generate about 10 billion different antibodies [3] and that, due to exposures to germs and other foreign material, people make between 1 million and 100 million different antibodies during our lifetime [4].

To a lay person who has little knowledge of how the immune system works, vaccine antigens seem unique, exotic, "atypical". But the FACT is, vaccine antigens are no different than the millions of antigens the body is exposed to naturally. This is a difficult concept for people to understand. Because the antigens are injected that supposedly counts as "atypical". Because the antigens are selected and purposefully introduced that supposedly counts as "atypical".

But again, the FACT is, the body does not react any differently to an injected vaccine antigen than it reacts to an inhaled antigen. Ingested antigens are sometimes affected by digestion, but inhaled antigens are not. And we inhale antigens everyday. To portray vaccines as acting differently or atypically when introduced into the body is a common misconception that is easily exploited by anti-vaxers. It's akin to claiming sea salt is different than mined salt when both are purified NaCl.

While we agree that we are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, we do not seem to agree on what was presented as fact and what was presented as opinion.

For example, consider the phrase I bolded above. I feel that is a more accurate representation of the current state of knowledge regarding those relationships. It's quite difficult to prove that two things are NOT related and I don't think you can actually claim that they are not related without committing the same sin you are accusing them of - i.e. presenting opinion as fact. This isn't a problem for me, but it does illustrate the problem of separating facts from opinions in such text, even for people who are not attempting to mislead.

Your opinion differs because you, yourself, are unaware of the science of the immune system. And you are an intelligent educated person. Think how easy it is to mislead people with less knowledge and brain capacity.

I see there are several more responses posted while I was composing this. I'll try to get to them as I can, but I'm think I'm going to have to limit my posting. I've pretty much said my piece, I'm short of time and I don't feel it necessary to keep repeating myself.

I don't want you to repeat yourself. I want you to recognize something in my posts that you were not aware of or had not considered.

Of course you should feel free to only add what you think is different or needs emphasis. I understand exactly what you mean by no time to defend your statements line by line again and again. I've been there. It's not a sign you've conceded by any means.

 

[Ausmerican]

So Beth, a billboard advertising the 'facts' of child sexual assault and directing you to NAMBLAs website? That is OK?

 

[Prometheus]

This isn't about them demanding ad time without paying for it. At least, I don't think the ads are being run for free. If that is case, then I would withdraw my objections.



Correct. It's not censorship because the tv network does or does not show their ad. The petition is attempted censorship because it seeks to keep a particular sponsor from being able to advertise at all.

No. Censorship is government-sponsored constriction of communication. The petition would be an attempt at censorship if it sought to get the government to prevent someone to advertise. The First Amendment only protects people's speech from being curtailed by agents of the government.

There is no First Amendment issue here.