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

[MikeSun5]

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.

Ah, but making someone remove things from their website ACTUALLY IS censorship. Prohibiting them to advertise in a public space via petition is not.
There are many things mentioned in this thread already that are not allowed to be advertised because they've essentially been voted inappropriate.

This goes along with what Skeptic Ginger was saying about any other snake oil. Homeopathic medicine is a perfect example. Many people here at the JREF (including the man himself) are vehemently against homeopathic drug companies advertising their products because they are lying about what it does. And like these anti-vaccine companies, lying makes them plenty of money.

I'm against the ad. They can keep their website, just like child porn sites and racist hate sites can keep theirs. People who believe in and are looking for that stuff are going to find it no matter what. But why introduce someone to something if they'd be better off not even knowing? Ridiculously extreme examples, but you see my point?

 

[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?

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

These are what is happening. I take it you would support those kinds of adverts? Or are you just ignoring these questions?

 

[AlBell]

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.

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

Yeah, examining either closely reminds one of the adage about ruining your appetite by watching the sausage-making process.

Law of gravity will be there in any case.

Medicine and problems of specific individuals parted ways a couple of decades ago; "it's just numbers".

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

How does a petition "keep a particular sponsor from being able to advertise"?

The petition is to convince CBS to decide not to show the ad. Hence...

"It's not censorship because the tv network does or does not show their ad."

CBS decides to show the ad or not. And it matters not one whit whether they make that decision based on whether they agree with the amount of money the advertiser has offered to pay or whether it is based on the message that is sent.

Petition trying to convince CBS to not provide advertising space to a group. Where's the censorship?

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Also, read the first five words in the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law

So it's not "censorship". We are private individuals insiting on honesty and abiding by reality. As far as I can tell, Congress has not done anything in this regard, and in no way should they. All the FDA, FCC, and other rules are already in place for a case to be made about the lies and distortions this ad is promoting, and as citizens, we have every right to ask CBS to examine the legitimacy of this ad.

 

[Beth]

...
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.

I’ve certainly noticed that I seem to be the only person here who cares about that distinction. That doesn’t make it arbitrary.

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

It is not arbitrary. The ad does not contain any lies.

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.

I think we’ll have to disagree on that point. It was presented as testimonial evidence. You don’t normally consider that as fact do you?

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".

Yes, injection counts as ‘atypical’. I recognize that the difference is unimportant in terms of the body’s reaction to the pathogens which is, I think, what you are trying to communicate. Claiming that your opponents are lying about that when people can easily discern that they are not is about as effective a method of persuasion as attempting to suppress your opponents POV. It makes you look bad, not them.

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.

Perhaps. On the other hand, I sometimes buy sea salt at the grocery store and it is distinctly different from table salt. They may both be purified NaCl, but it’s not a false claim to say they are different.

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.

No, my opinion differs because I’m knowledgeable about how such things are computed. It doesn’t have anything to do with the immune system. It’s a basic aspect of how we make determinations about relationships. We are not able to establish that no relationship exists. If a study has been done and data is available, what we can do is make the statement that we are x% certain that any relationship that exists is less than a specified amount y. When x is sufficiently high and y is sufficiently close to zero, we’re willing to accept that no significant relationship exists.

You are blurring the line between opinion and fact when you claim that "The list of vacine reactions includes serious medical problems NOT related to vaccines." I don't have a problem with your statement as I can recognize that it is a brief way to state that you feel the probability of a significant relationship is so low that it can be considered non-existant. The problem is that it isn't different from what you are labeling false claims and propaganda. The same labels could be applied to what you said with equal validity.

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.

That’s why I hang out here and read your posts

 

[Beth]

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

Would I approve of it? No.

Do I think it should be banned? No.

 

[Beth]

How does a petition "keep a particular sponsor from being able to advertise"?

The petition doesn't. It is merely an attempt to do so. I don't support attempts at censorship.

The petition is to convince CBS to decide not to show the ad. Hence...

"It's not censorship because the tv network does or does not show their ad."

CBS decides to show the ad or not. And it matters not one whit whether they make that decision based on whether they agree with the amount of money the advertiser has offered to pay or whether it is based on the message that is sent.

Petition trying to convince CBS to not provide advertising space to a group. Where's the censorship?

In the attempt to prevent an organization from disseminating their message. You don't like their message, so you try to prevent them from being able to communicate it to others. If you are successful, then you have censored that organization.

 

[Beth]

I'm against the ad. They can keep their website, just like child porn sites and racist hate sites can keep theirs. People who believe in and are looking for that stuff are going to find it no matter what. But why introduce someone to something if they'd be better off not even knowing? Ridiculously extreme examples, but you see my point?

No.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

You don't like their message, so you try to prevent them from being able to communicate it to others.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's not a matter of liking or disliking the message. It's a matter of them LYING and ENDANGERING public welfare. It's not cencoring, it's censuring. If you can't make that distinction, then not only are you being deliberately obtuse, but I would call into question your motives for keeping this argument going.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Signed, but I want more.

Signing a petition may or may not achieve anything. Getting a bunch of noisy demonstrators to Times Square to shout, boo, hiss, and blow air horns every time it airs would be far better IMHO.
Not only do you get a chance to tell passersby (by engaging and by pamphleting) that the ad is a crock of fecal matter, but you'd likely get some air time to have a solid spokesperson refute the nonsense.

What's Randi doing that week? This is a cause worthy of the JREF.

Haven't read this whole thread, but doesn't making a lot of noise when the ad shows.... just DRAW ATTENTION TO THE AD???

I get the impulse to fight this, but it would be more effective to run a competing campaign. The classic skeptic blunder is to attack misinformation head-on in a way that SPREADS THE MISINFORMATION.

We're just making this Times Square thing go viral.

 

[pgwenthold]

In the attempt to prevent an organization from disseminating their message.

What is "preventing" them from disseminating their message? If the petition is successful, it will be CBS, choosing not to show the ads.

But you already said that CBS not granting someone access to their broadcast for advertising is not censorship. They do that all the time, for lots of reasons.

"Not giving someone a platform to advertise" is not censorship.

 

[Mongrel]

In the attempt to prevent an organization from disseminating their message. You don't like their message, so you try to prevent them from being able to communicate it to others. If you are successful, then you have censored that organization.

Or, you have just pointed out that the people trying to buy advertising space are lying sleazeballs and do they, as a large TV company, want to be associated with them?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Medicine and problems of specific individuals parted ways a couple of decades ago; "it's just numbers".

What...the?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... If you can't make that distinction, then not only are you being deliberately obtuse, but I would call into question your motives for keeping this argument going.

Having been in the position of disagreeing with the majority, and having people act like I somehow had a habit of disagreeing (politics forum excepted) with critically thinking skeptics, I just want to point out that this kind of accusation has no basis.

Beth has a point of view, you have a point of view, I have a point of view. Sometimes we don't see the other's position, or we see it and don't agree with it. There's no more or less to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
In the attempt to prevent an organization from disseminating their message. You don't like their message, so you try to prevent them from being able to communicate it to others. If you are successful, then you have censored that organization.

I am drawing a distinction between free speech when it comes to an opinion and speech when it comes to disseminating false information. I don't see you drawing that distinction here. Slander and Libel are recognized as not covered 100% under free speech rights. False medical claims on a vitamin supplement are not covered 100% under free speech rights. Yelling "fire" in a theater and disturbing the peace are not covered 100% under free speech rights.

SO, if the reader board was directly stating a false fact about vaccines that was potentially harmful, would you have signed the petition?


You have expressed the belief that the NVIC is about vaccine opinion and values. You seem reluctant to recognize the NVIC is about false scientific claims. I'm having a hard time understanding why you aren't looking at the bad science here. From where I stand, you appear to believe the bad science or at least some of it.

Yes, injection counts as ‘atypical’. I recognize that the difference is unimportant in terms of the body’s reaction to the pathogens which is, I think, what you are trying to communicate. Claiming that your opponents are lying about that when people can easily discern that they are not is about as effective a method of persuasion as attempting to suppress your opponents POV. It makes you look bad, not them....

... I sometimes buy sea salt at the grocery store and it is distinctly different from table salt. They may both be purified NaCl, but it’s not a false claim to say they are different.

These seem like "excuseplanations", my favorite new word. Purified NaCl is NaCl. Where the salt was originally obtained is not relevant to the claim. It's like saying salt from the blue box is technically different from salt you got out of the red box.

The fact the anti-vaxers 'believe' what they are claiming does not make it a true claim. The fact they believe an injection makes the immune system treat an antigen differently does not make it a true fact the immune system treats that antigen any differently than antigens introduced when you prick your finger with a thorn.

The issue is not about their opinion that vaccines are unnatural. That is not the false information we are talking about here. The false information is the incorrect science about how the immune system reacts to an antigen. The false information is not about a chosen lifestyle, nature over science. The false information is saying nature (in this case) won't hurt you and the science will.

You said you understood the difference when it came to the bad engineering claims about why the buildings collapsed in the 911 conspiracy theories. Yet you seem to be buying the bad science for things like how the immune system responds to a vaccine antigen.

I think we’ll have to disagree on that point. It was presented as testimonial evidence. You don’t normally consider that as fact do you?

This is like saying a claim that anecdotal evidence supports a conclusion is just fine, everyone knows it is only anecdotal.

I don't have a problem with your statement as I can recognize that it is a brief way to state that you feel the probability of a significant relationship is so low that it can be considered non-existant.

I will say it again because now you are glossing over it, SOME OF THE THINGS ON THAT PAGE ARE FACTUAL. The mix of facts and untruths is how one deceives more effectively.

That said, as for the specific thing I did say, they've attributed side effects to vaccines that are not side effects of vaccines, some of the things they listed are NOT vaccine side effects. The idea that one can never make that claim because one can't prove it absolutely, yadda yadda, puhleese. I can say with 100% certainty that a vaccination is not going to give you striped orange and green skin.

It's not realistic to say that a claim, that a vaccine can cause xyz when there is zero evidence that vaccine causes xyz, is a legit claim because we can never disprove it. It's an excuseplanation for the bad medicine claims on the NVIC website. We have overwhelming evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. It is not factual to say, "but we can't ever have enough evidence to stop making the claim". That's a ludicrous standard for calling something a false medical claim. It might be a reasonable standard for the scientific process where proof is not the goal, but not when it comes to addressing false medical claims.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Haven't read this whole thread, but doesn't making a lot of noise when the ad shows.... just DRAW ATTENTION TO THE AD???

I get the impulse to fight this, but it would be more effective to run a competing campaign. The classic skeptic blunder is to attack misinformation head-on in a way that SPREADS THE MISINFORMATION.

We're just making this Times Square thing go viral.

Being a veteran of such actions, I'm going to disagree. If you connected the part you highlighted to the following paragraph, you'd note that I'm suggesting to hand out counter information and let people know why you're protesting.

Unlike flashmobbing, a protest of this sort should be designed to get information out. And I actually believe that allowing the information to be presented, uncontested, on a board that normally shows news bites, is far worse.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Would I approve of it? No.

Do I think it should be banned? No.

Banned to me implies a legal prohibition. While I do have an opinion about our false advertising laws being too lax, that isn't the issue here.

Protesting an ad says the protestors have an issue with the ad. It doesn't say the protestors have an issue with the legality of the ad.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Medicine and problems of specific individuals parted ways a couple of decades ago; "it's just numbers".

I have to totally guess what you mean here but there is an argument made by people who don't understand how we determine if a reaction is caused by a drug or not. The uninformed believe that somehow unique individual reactions are not detected in studies.

If the reaction truly was one of a kind, it would be hard to detect. But the complaints about vaccines are never complaints about one of a kind reactions, they are complaints about reactions that occur in more than one person. Rare reactions are detectable. All you need is a large enough sample size. And with vaccines, because we have many years of experience and widespread use, we have very large sample sizes.

So, yes, Al, it is about the numbers.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Being a veteran of such actions, I'm going to disagree. If you connected the part you highlighted to the following paragraph, you'd note that I'm suggesting to hand out counter information and let people know why you're protesting.

Unlike flashmobbing, a protest of this sort should be designed to get information out. And I actually believe that allowing the information to be presented, uncontested, on a board that normally shows news bites, is far worse.

Veteran or no, it may FEEL like you're making a net positive impact, but it seems far more likely that you'll draw more low-information attention to the ad by participating in a controversy than you will convert people who are in danger of being swayed by the ad by handing out literature.

In fact, based on the results of studies examining how misinformation spreads, I'd call it a near certainty.

Mercola and NVIC must be thrilled that their ad is creating controversy before it has even gone live.

Journalist: "What do you have to say to charges that you're spreading misinformation and endangering children's health with this ad?"

NVIC: "Just make sure you spell the name of our organization right."