An Honest Flu Ad

Click to enlarge.

Last week, the National Vaccine (mis-)Information Center ran an ad in a New Hampshire newspaper designed to make people fear the flu vaccine. I wrote about why the NVIC ad is misleading, as did Moms Who Vax and Epidemiological. In short, the NVIC ad played to the myth that the flu vaccine makes you sick (it doesn't) and promoted the idea that the vaccine doesn't work (it does). It also played on fears of adverse reactions to the vaccine ("know the risks"), but did not so much as hint at the benefits.

At any rate, I though I'd put together a somewhat more honest ad. Here's my take on the NVIC ad. Please feel free to share this, unaltered, far and wide. I also have a higher resolution version of it that should be good to print. E-mail me (contact info's in the sidebar) if you would like a copy.

NVIC? Know the Omissions (Part 2)

Those of you who read this blog regularly know some of the common tactics that anti-vaccine activists use. They're fond of the Pharma Shill Gambit, in which they accuse those with whom they disagree as being paid by pharmaceutical companies. This allows them to blissfully dismiss anything their detractors have to say. If you're paid by pharma, after all, you're hopelessly biased and nothing you say can be taken as true or honest. Of course, it doesn't matter whether you actually get paid by pharma or not. Facts don't tend to matter much to those using the pharma shill gambit.

That brings us to another tactic: dishonest or misleading rhetoric. The less, shall we say, sophisticated anti-vaccine activists aren't all that subtle about it. They will brazenly state as truth claims that are easily shown to be wrong (e.g., the false claim that MMR has the preservative thimerosal in it, or that vaccines contain antifreeze; they don't). The more skilled among the anti-vaccine movement, however, use insinuation. They imply certain claims using language that, on the surface, is technically true or could be classified as opinion, but the unstated claim is at best misleading and at worst dangerously wrong.

The National Vaccine Information Center (a more Orwellian-named organization would be hard to find) falls into that latter category, for the most part. Take, for instance, their latest ad, placed in a local New Hampshire newspaper:

NVIC? Know the Omissions

The National Vaccine Information Center is at it again. They have launched a two-month, multi-state billboard advertising campaign to spread their misinformation and fear about vaccines. They are calling this the "Know the Risks" campaign. For the months of March and April, billboards like this will "grace" the landscape around Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; and Tucson, AZ:

Something seems to be missing...
Image credit: Voices for Vaccines

According to the press release, they claim their goal is to "encourage well informed vaccine decision-making". However, as we've seen before, NVIC's founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, appears to have little problem promoting blatantly incorrect information regarding vaccines. The first thing I noticed when I saw the above billboard was that something rather important to being "well informed" was missing: knowing the benefits of vaccinations. Yes, making an informed choice requires knowing the risks and failures, but the benefits are also needed. It also helps to put the risks into context by knowing how likely it is to occur, and how that compares to similar risks from the diseases that are prevented by vaccines.

Leaving important information like that out (or even just the fact that there are benefits) strikes me as a dishonest tactic. But let's take a closer look at this.

Why Do I Do This?

The other day, I received an email from someone via my other site, asking why I do this. Why do I speak out against anti-vaccine myths and put so much time and effort into that site (and this blog), when I state I have no financial ties to any pharmaceutical companies. Is it just a "labour of love because [I am] concerned for humanity"? Where does my passion come from? What intrigued me about this was that it came shortly after my experience with the Vermont Digger and the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice, the latter of whom, along with Laura Condon of the National Vaccine Information Center, accused me of being a Pharma Shill^TM and/or paid by Dr. Paul Offit. And certainly there are hints that the non-vaccinating individual who emailed me suspected that, my honest statements notwithstanding, I really was paid to write and comment.

Just to reiterate, I receive no money or any other compensation from a pharmaceutical company to write about vaccines in any manner. I hold no stocks (unless there happen to be some in the mutual funds in my retirement account, over which I have no control). I receive no checks, dinners, or quid pro quos. A kind fellow by the moniker Eric TF Bat kindly provided me with hosting space on his domain for my AntiAntiVax site for free after several fellow commenters at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog recommended I turn one of my comments into a web site so people would have a permanent place to point people to when countering anti-vaccine myths. I don't know Eric outside of that context. As for my blog, well, it's hosted by Blogger (clearly), which is also free. I have paid for my domain name out of my own pocket. And I use my own free time to write. Some people garden. I blog. So there's my financial situation regarding my countering of myths and misinformation regarding vaccines. I don't get squat, and I would not accept any money from a pharmaceutical company, either, even if they offered it to me.

So, if I don't get paid, why the hell do I do this?

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

There is a certain lie that floats about anti-vaccine groups. Before I go on, let me be clear about my use of that word: "lie". Because of certain, um, frivolous proclivities among some of the folks who perpetuate this lie, I feel it behooves me to define just what I mean. In this post, I am going to use the term "lie" with it's definition of "a falsehood". It should not be construed, unless I explicitly state otherwise, that I am implying an intention to deceive on the part of the person uttering this lie. Suffice to say that, whether through deliberate action or mere misunderstanding, many among the anti-vaccine movement persist in forwarding this lie, this falsehood, as if it were truth.

Now what lie am I going on about? This: "the Supreme Court of the United States has completely shielded vaccine manufacturers from product liability". You've no doubt heard some version of this before, often in the form "parents can't sue vaccine manufacturers". As it is frequently stated by those opposed to vaccinations, this simply is not true. Some parents just repeat this because they read it somewhere and believed it. They haven't actually read the relevant documents to find out for themselves what's really going on. I don't blame them for that. It's sloppy thinking and intellectually lazy, but I'm not going to harp on it. I'd just recommend that they (temporarily) put aside their blinders, read the actual source documents and think for themselves. Don't even take my word for it.

Then there are those who ought to know better, and, I suspect, probably do. Whether they just really do not understand or are knowingly misrepresenting facts, there are those who hold themselves out as fierce advocates of informed consent who, if they were truly devoted to that, would actually present truth, rather than falsehood. People like Barbara Loe Fisher.

Calling on Congress to Do the Wrong Thing

Oh, Age of Autism. Once again, this rag that calls itself a web newspaper of the autism epidemic ignores science and providing real help and support for families with autism in favor of unsubstantiated hyperbole and appeals to politics. Since they do not have actual science behind their claims, they try to use political means to get their way, freely ignoring reality.

Feeling that, perhaps, they made some small victories after the recent Congressional hearing on autism, the fact-challenged are making some demands suggestions to our legislative body. In a post titled Top 10 List for Congress Post Autism Hearing, contributor Laura Hayes addresses Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL) and includes a list of ten things she would like Congress to do. I'm not quite certain whether to chuckle at how inane it is or worry, since the hearing included more than one science-challenged Congresscritter.

Rob Schneider's Hellish Nonsense

Thursday night, I mentioned that Rob Schneider was going to be on Salt Lake City's KXRK morning radio show Radio From Hell to promote his stand-up show Friday night at Wiseguys West Valley City. I joined Skepchick's Elyse Anders in urging people to contact the station if they had a call-in segment during the interview. Orac also put the word out about this appearance.

Well, I was fortunate enough to find time to listen to the show Friday morning via their internet live stream. As noted by Elyse, Schneider had been on the show before, shamelessly spouting a bunch of tired, well-worn anti-vaccine lies and myths. This morning, he was a bit late showing up at the studio, which I don't blame him for; it was early, he mentioned he only had about 3 hours sleep, and we don't know what his travel and traffic situation was.  The hosts, led by Bill Allred, pondered whether they should just rerun the clip (mp3 hosted at Skepchick) from the last time he was on.

At any rate, he finally showed up to sit down for a chat...

New Report from HHS on Vaccine Storage

I heard something on the news this morning that I figured would get the anti-vaccine crowd into a fervor of excitement. It is something that they could spin to make it seem like vaccines really are dangerous or that they really don't protect people. Images leapt to mind of writers and commenters alike over at Age of Autism crying out, "See! We're not dumb for refusing vaccines!" Barbara Loe Fisher at the National Vaccine Information Center floated before my eyes, declaiming that vaccines are not safe. I could almost hear Mike Adams or Gary Null snidely claiming that this report proves (proves, I tell you!) that vaccines are ineffective. And so, I figured I should probably take a closer look into it before the wacky misinterpretations and outright lies began to flow.

What brought all this to mind? As reported by ABC news, some doctors may not be storing vaccines properly. The story is based on a new report from the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG), titled Vaccines for Children Program: Vulnerabilities in Vaccine Management (the PDF of the full report can be found here). Briefly, the OIG found that providers of vaccines made available through the CDC's Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) (a program that provides free vaccines to kids whose families might otherwise be unable to afford to get their child immunized) were frequently storing vaccines in inappropriate conditions, potentially reducing their potency and efficacy.

There are a couple ways that I could see this report being spun by opponents of vaccination. Let's take a look...

The Anti-Vaccine Crowd Shows They Are Anti-Informed Consent

"We want people to have informed choice when it comes to vaccines." These words, or at least something along these lines, are uttered by many anti-vaccine activists, like Barbara Loe Arthur (aka Barbara Loe Fisher) of the misnamed National Vaccine Information Center or the authors at Age of Autism. To hear them speak, you would imagine that they would be completely in favor of any efforts which strive to provide accurate, complete information to parents who are deciding whether or not to have their children vaccinated. Such efforts should be whole-heartedly embraced by these "pro-informed consent" warriors.

Just such an opportunity has arisen in California, with AB 2109. As I recently wrote, this bill would expand on California's philosophical exemptions regulations regarding immunization requirements for day care and school enrollment. If passed, parents seeking a philosophical exemption would need to obtain from a physician or other health care provider a signed statement that the doctor provided them with information on the benefits and risks of vaccines. Physicians are already required by Federal law to provide this information before administering a vaccine. This provision would provide an added opportunity for parents to receive sound information and advice regarding their children's vaccines.

Sounds like something Fisher and company would support, no? Surprisingly, no.

Does @VaxCalc Provide Valid Info on Vaccines? Not Really...

Twitter can be a really useful tool for getting information out to lots of people in a very short amount of time. The down side is that the 140-character limit on your message means there isn't a whole lot of space for nuance or detail. This leaves plenty of room for misinterpretation of messages. It also means that those with an agenda to drive can ignore nuance in favor of their own spin. For example, the Twitter account @VaxCalc, run by the Orwellian named National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). @VaxCalc pumps out a steady stream of...uh...words (I refuse to call it "information," since it is nothing of the sort) that, while containing a speck of a grain of truth, aim to persuade people away from vaccines. Don't believe me? Have a look:

But I thought they removed it!

The link in the tweet takes you to a table on the FDA's web site about thimerosal in vaccines. Thimerosal, as most of you know, is a preservative that is used to prevent vaccines from being contaminated with bacteria, fungi or viruses, which can be very bad, indeed (as evidenced by the 1928 Bundaberg Disaster, in which 12 children died because a vaccine became contaminated). It caused a stir because it is metabolized into ethylmercury, which some erroneously linked to autism.

Anyway, is that tweet correct? Well, yes and no.

Pox by Post

Something came to light today that made me despair for the human race. I first read it at Mike the Mad Biologist's blog. It was also covered by Emily over at The Biology Files, where Emily took a look at just who the people were that were involved. Reuben wrote about it at The Poxes Blog and Tara discussed it at Aetiology.

What could have gotten the medical and skeptical blogosphere in such an uproar? This story.

A Little Bit of Poison in a Sweet, Inviting Wrapper

If you follow me on Twitter (and if you don't, why aren't you?), you have likely already heard about a PSA put out by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) and Mercola.com, two slick anti-vaccine organizations. The PSA is being run on Delta Airlines flight. You can read more about it at Skepchick and Respectful Insolence. The Skepchick article includes steps you can take to combat the propaganda, including a link to a petition to get Delta to stop showing it on their flights.

The video is available on YouTube (Update: It looks like NVIC removed the video at that link, but it is still up here and here [Update: looks like it has been removed from Facebook, now, too]), but cannot be embedded. Comments have also been turned off, perhaps to avoid inconvenient critiques from science-minded individuals. On the surface, it appears to be pretty good advice, so why all the fuss?

Because the PSA includes some iffy information and, more importantly, directs people to the NVIC web site, which is rife with misinformation and distortions of fact.

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

An argument that is heard with near light speed rapidity in discussions of anti-vaccine sentiments is "I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm pro-safe vaccine." This typically comes either immediately following or preceding a diatribe about how evil and dangerous vaccines are. The speaker/author generally declaims how every vaccine is dangerous and God forbid they should ever subject their child to such monstrous poisons (in their eyes). Present them with a series of vaccines and, more likely than not, they will describe some issue which, in their opinion, makes the vaccine "not safe," rendering it anathema. While they are not, in their words, "anti-vaccine," they are "anti-all-currently-used-vaccines."

Whatever. Tomato, tomahto. I'm not going to argue semantics. Instead, I'm issuing a challenge to anyone who says they are "not anti-vaccine, but pro-safe vaccine" (as if those who support vaccines are pro-dangerous vaccine). It is really a simple thing: don't just talk the talk; walk the walk.

Vaccine Awareness Week: I'm not Anti-vax, I'm Pro-Safe Vaccine

This whole Vaccine Awareness Week has got me to thinking a bit about some of the arguments that anti-vaxers make. I wonder just how they reason things out. What is it that resonates so strongly in their minds that they don’t simply question vaccines, but go so far beyond reason and rational thought? They can look at the very same things that those of us who accept vaccines view as amazing advancements of medical science and instead see all manner of bogeymen. Every last thing to do with vaccines, if you believe many of them, is the epitome of all that is vile and evil. The really incredible thing, though, is that even while they have a knee-jerk reaction to reject any and every vaccine, they insist that they are not anti-vaccine. Rather, they say that they are “pro-safe vaccine.”

As I thought about this, I realized something: I, myself, am not anti-vaccine; I’m pro-safe vaccine.

Vaccine Awareness Week

As some of you have probably already heard, Joe Mercola and Barbara Loe Fisher (of the misnamed National Vaccine Information Center) have decided to declare November 1-6 "Vaccine Awareness Week". Well, I'm going to try to join the fun that Orac at Respectful Insolence suggested, along with Science-Based Medicine, Neurologica and whatever other blogs join the fun.

During that week, pay attention to Twitter, as well, with the #vaxfax hash tag.

Censored on Forcing Flu Shots on Health Care Workers: Who Is Next?

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Forcing Flu Shots on Health Care Workers: Who Is Next?, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Show to Watch - FRONTLINE: The Vaccine War

Quite a number of years ago, in 1993, the PBS program Frontline took on the scam known as Facilitated Communication (FC), a technique by which a facilitator supposedly helps children with autism communicate via a keyboard, but in reality completely author the messages produced. FC had become quite popular in the autism community because now the children were supposedly composing poetry, writing essays and telling their parents, "I love you". However, it came under scrutiny when allegations of physical and sexual abuse began surfacing. The resulting fallout ruined many families, as parents faced jail time based on the messages written by the facilitators. Frontline exposed the sham in their episode "Prisoners of Silence" (Here is Part 1 of the program).

Tomorrow, they will delve into the autism world once again, this time focusing on "The Vaccine War". The episode is scheduled to air tomorrow, April 27, 2010. Others have already commented on the press release and video clips, so I'll just let them give you a taste of the preview. If Frontline's past reporting is any indication, this will certainly be an episode to watch.