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

[MikeSun5]

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.

...you see my point?

No.

Well, it wasn't for lack of explanation, that's for sure.

Oh well. And some you win.

 

[Travis]

I can't believe we are debating this. What they are doing is killing people. It could very well kill me or you.

Your right to free speech ends when it will kill me.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

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.

That is the distinction I was attempting to drive home with my "obtuse" comment. I see that at least you and I agree on that point (and many others). Defining what banned and what cesure means is not a matter of opinion though. It's a matter of a dictionary. That is in essence what I was getting at.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I can't believe we are debating this. What they are doing is killing people. It could very well kill me or you.

Your right to free speech ends when it will kill me.

Wow...

Disclaimer: I don't think there's any free speech issue with petitioning a private company not to display someone's ad.

That being said, since the discussion has been generalized to what should be excluded from the right to free speech: Think of how much speech you could apply your standard to.

This is where we hop off the rails of skepticism and tumble down the cliffs of fanaticism.

 

[Beth]

...
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.

I am drawing a distinction between speech that actually disseminates false information and speech that does not. I don’t see you drawing that distinction here. In fact, you’ve made it quite clear that you consider giving the website address to be the same as stating the false information at that website. I've made it clear that I do not.

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

Yes, but I don’t think a petition would be the best approach in that case. Reporting the ad to the FCC would seem a more appropriate action.

You have expressed the belief that the NVIC is about vaccine opinion and values.

NO! I’ve expressed my opinion that the vaccine issue is about differences of core values. You then accused me of drinking their kool-ade.

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.

Have you ever actually looked at the two different kinds of salt? Sea salt has larger coarser crystals than table salt. It’s not a big deal, but I like to make my own bath salts and the recipes specify sea salt for that reason.
My point is that you are insisting that others agree with you that they are the same when it’s clear to anyone who looks that they are not. The difference may not be important or relevant, as in the case with vaccines, but claiming there is no difference when people can clearly see that there is doesn’t inspire confidence that you know what you are talking about.

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 false information is the incorrect science about how the immune system reacts to an antigen.

In the quote you posted early, they didn’t make the claim that the immune system treated the antigens differently. They asked 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? You are inferring that claim and then accusing them of having false information on their website.

The false information is saying nature (in this case) won't hurt you and the science will.

I didn’t see that claim in the material you quoted in post 88. Again, you are making inferences from what they have said and calling your inferences ‘false information’. I agree that the inferences and innuendo are misleading, but that is not the same as posting false information.

You said you understood the difference when it came to the bad engineering claims about why the buildings collapsed in the 911 conspiracy theories.

No, that isn’t what I said. I’ve never looked in the 911 conspiracy theories in enough depth to make that sort of call. I answered a question you asked which related to including the information in a college class. My answer was unrelated to the quality of the engineering claims. It was based on the fact that it was a college course.

Yet you seem to be buying the bad science for things like how the immune system responds to a vaccine antigen.

No. I’m saying that it’s a true statement that vaccines manipulate the immune system in an atypical way. They are injected. That is not the typical way antigens are introduced to the body. I agree that it doesn’t affect the immune system in any relevant or significant fashion.

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.

Yes. I take it you have a problem with that?

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.

Except that you haven’t quoted any untruths from their page. You quoted things they said and explained why you think the implications are wrong. But I draw a distinction between actually stating false information and making implications by phrasing things as questions.

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.

They’ve listed reactions that have been reported to vaccines. That is not quite the same thing as claiming the vaccines caused those reactions. The implication is certainly there, but the information itself is not false. If someone wanted to investigate for themselves, go to the database and look for reports of those reactions, I’m reasonably certain they would find them.

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.

You can say that, but you won’t convince me you’re correct. Remember, you’re talking to a statistician. We can never by 100% sure of anything.

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.

I didn’t say it was a legit claim. I said they didn’t make that claim. You are inferring that claim from what they did say. I said that your claim that there was NO relationship is not a factual claim.

Banned to me implies a legal prohibition.

I don't make that connection. There are lots of situations where something is banned but not by the government. For example, chewing gum is banned in my house. I hate it!

 

[ehcks]

In the quote you posted early, they didn’t make the claim that the immune system treated the antigens differently. They asked 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? You are inferring that claim and then accusing them of having false information on their website.

That's a deliberately misinformative question. A vaccine is an injection of foreign material, while actual diseases are also caused by an injection of foreign material.

The injector just happens to be a scratch or a cut, or inhalation or ingestion, instead of a needle. That's just semantics as far as the body is concerned. The immune system reacts in exactly the same way.

 

[Almo]

I find Snopes' arguments on the matter to be very convincing.

Great link! Thanks for that.

 

[Beth]

That's a deliberately misinformative question. A vaccine is an injection of foreign material, while actual diseases are also caused by an injection of foreign material.

The injector just happens to be a scratch or a cut, or inhalation or ingestion, instead of a needle. That's just semantics as far as the body is concerned.

Call it what you want, it means that they didn't make a false claim.

The immune system reacts in exactly the same way.

That is my understanding as well.

 

[Emet]

The ad also shows Dr. Mercola's web site. Registration is required to view the site, (and I'd rather have a root canal without anesthesia than register) but here's one eye catching headline:

New Scientific Review Shows Vaccines and Autism ARE Linked
http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/tags/Vaccines/default.aspx

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The ad also shows Dr. Mercola's web site. Registration is required to view the site, (and I'd rather have a root canal without anesthesia than register) but here's one eye catching headline:

What site of Mercola's requires registration? His whole purpose is selling stuff to believers.

 

[Emet]

What site of Mercola's requires registration? His whole purpose is selling stuff to believers.

When you start clicking around the site I linked, you can't read the details of the articles without registering. An ad-like box shows up, and I saw no way to close it.

ETA: You can view info about the crap he sells til the cows come home.

 

[Chris Haynes]

When you start clicking around the site I linked, you can't read the details of the articles without registering. An ad-like box shows up, and I saw no way to close it.

ETA: You can view info about the crap he sells til the cows come home.

I did manage to click on "view source" just before the almost full page ad popped up one time, and was able to find the direct link to an article that was I able to download. It took a few tries, and was very annoying.

I am sure that Mercola wants email addresses and names for spamming purposes, and I am not about to give them to him. I mostly rely on reprints and critiques from others who endure the mailings.

 

[Emet]

I did manage to click on "view source" just before the almost full page ad popped up one time, and was able to find the direct link to an article that was I able to download. It took a few tries, and was very annoying.

I am sure that Mercola wants email addresses and names for spamming purposes, and I am not about to give them to him. I mostly rely on reprints and critiques from others who endure the mailings.

I considered using a fake e-mail, but I just went back to Mercola's site. By scrolling through the blue haze surrounding the registration request, it turns out the study he was referring to was from the CBS story on March 31, 2001.


Orac had discussed the review paper in February, 2011.

Science-Based Medicine reported about the CBS story in April, 2011.

Orac also wrote about the CBS story.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The ad also shows Dr. Mercola's web site. Registration is required to view the site, (and I'd rather have a root canal without anesthesia than register) but here's one eye catching headline:...

OK, I get it. I didn't get the blue screen until I clicked on the second article.

There is a way around this stuff sometimes. In the article in question, Mercola says Helen Ratajczak is the author of said review article. From that I found this CBS news story on said review.

The news report says Ratajczak is a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. The link to the supposed review says: "Access token is over its max activation limit"That's a new one on me. The site, "Informa Healthcare" claims to be a site for access to various journals. But a little web surfing and I found a link to the paper via soma anti-vaxer site:

Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review

This is not a review of research. I've seen this kind of thing before. This is a paper that one would write to support an hypothesis. A review of research would look at specific studies that looked at the relationship between autism and vaccines and do a meta-analysis of the out comes. This review, OTOH, cherry picks supporting evidence for an hypothesis. Both kinds of review have their place, but it is important to recognize the difference.

Of course this one is very poorly done. I found several flaws in the review with just a quick scan:

Changes in rates of autism incidenceThe California Department of Developmental Services conducted a study of time trends in the prevalence by age and birth cohort of children with autism who were active clients from January 1, 1995 to March 31, 2007 (Schechter and Grether, 2008). The data did not show any decrease in autism in California, despite the exclusion of more than trace levels of Thimerosal from nearly all childhood vaccines by 2002. However, in 2004, inactivated influenza vaccine frequently containing Thimerosal was newly recommended for all children 6–23-months old in the United States (Schechter and Grether, 2008). In addition, influenza vaccination during all trimesters of pregnancy is now universally recommended in the United States (Ayoub and Yazbak, 2006). Most inactivated influenza vaccines contain Thimerosal, despite its implication in autism (Ayoub and Yazbak, 2006). Data from a worldwide composite of studies show that an increase in cumulative incidence began about 1988–1990 (McDonald and Paul, 2010).

The truth is as thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines, the expected decline in autism rates did not occur.

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends, part II: Generation Rescue, the anti-vaccine propaganda machine, and “Fourteen Studies”

Antivaccinationists really, really hate this study because it looked at a very specific prediction that naturally follows from the hypothesis that mercury in the thimerosal preservative in vaccines was a major cause of the “autism epidemic.” I say “was” because by early 2002, thimerosal had been removed from the vast majority of vaccines, and this allows the testing of the hypothesis. Specifically, the prediction is that, if thimerosal in vaccines was indeed a major cause of autism, autism incidence should have plummeted within a few years after it was removed. This study showed that there is no evidence that the apparent rise in autism is even plateauing yet in California. In a truly fun bit of additional irony, this study even uses the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) database, to which David Kirby has often referred as a good way of looking at whether autism rates have started falling since thimerosal was removed from most vaccines. He has also since been moving the goalposts as to when he would expect autism rates to begin falling if the thimerosal hypthesis is true, going first from 2005 to 2007 and, most recently, to 2011.

The discussion goes on and is worth reading if anyone is interested.

Nothing in Ratajczak's "review" compares children with autism and the receipt or not of flu vaccine either to the mother during pregnancy or the child. During the time period discussed here flu vaccine was only given to very small numbers of pregnant women and children. Vaccine rates for flu among pregnant women was only 17% in the year prior to the H1N1 pandemic. And it remains an uphill battle to get parents to vaccinate healthy kids. We've only seen progress in the last 2-3 years.

The new version of the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (i.e., MMR II) that did not contain Thimerosal was introduced in 1979

Nonsense!. Killed measles vaccine was used in the US from 1963 until 1968. After that it was live vaccine. You cannot put thimerosal in a live vaccine. In addition, thimerosal is not needed in single dose vaccines and all live vaccines are single dose. So MMR may have been introduced in 1979 (I'd have to check) but MR (combined measles and rubella) vaccine was given since 1968.


I'm sure the rest of the paper could just as easily be torn apart.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I considered using a fake e-mail, but I just went back to Mercola's site. By scrolling through the blue haze surrounding the registration request, it turns out the study he was referring to was from the CBS story on March 31, 2001.


Orac had discussed the review paper in February, 2011.

Science-Based Medicine reported about the CBS story in April, 2011.

Orac also wrote about the CBS story.

Wonderful, a web surfer with excellent skills. I was composing my post while you were posting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Journal of Immunotoxicology the review is published in appears to be a valid peer reviewed journal though I have no idea of the quality given they published 2 of Ratajczak's reviews.

 

[vwgub]

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.

It is not illegal to lie in ads. It is illegal to lie in trade. There is a difference.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is not illegal to lie in ads. It is illegal to lie in trade. There is a difference.

I'm not clear on what you are saying. Are you saying you can lie in an ad if you are not selling anything but not if you are?

 

[MikeSun5]

So what exactly is the lesson here? I'm hearing, "Petitions don't work, and if you can't make it all the way to New York to stage your own protest, then it's better if you just forget about the issue and do nothing."

I wonder what this country would be like if everyone had just shrugged off and/or ignored ALL the issues that ever put people in danger. Probably would have taken care of some of the population problems we have now, right? Of course an ostrich with its head in the sand isn't as cool of a national mascot as the bald eagle...

Hey Beth, imagine for a second that doing absolutely nothing was not an option... what would you suggest?

 

[chipmunk stew]

what would you suggest?

I know this wasn't directed to me, but:

A counter campaign, rather than a protest campaign.

If you want to help misinformation spread, draw attention to it by reactively protesting it.

If you want to stunt the spread of misinformation, spread information that crowds it out.

Make a website called vaccineswork.com and take out some provocative ads. Make anti-vaxxers react to you.