This seems to be the week for lazy journalists falling for the false balance that is the epitome of sloppy reporting. I had originally planned to write about this particular bit of nonsense yesterday, but the article giving a platform to anti-vaccine bully Becky Estepp took precedence. Also, Dr. Steven Novella and Orac both beat me to the punch. But, there's still plenty of meat in the story to go around.
I'm talking about the latest verbal vomitus from anti-vaccine activist Mary Tocco, titled No one should be forced to vaccinate their children". Ms. Tocco's letter was in response to a science-based op-ed, "Anti-vaccination movement threatens the health, safety and well-being of Michigan children", by Dr. Anthony F. Ogjnan and Dr. Sandro Cinti. The original letter is well worth the read, particularly for those who live in Michigan and are concerned about their legislators being gulled by the dishonest misinformation campaigns of anti-vaccine groups, like Michigan Opposing Mandatory Vaccines (MOMV - apparently Ms. Tocco is as bad at making acronyms as she is at everything else, since she calls it "MOM", i.e., "Michigan Opposing Mandatory"). Ms. Tocco's response is an exercise in name that logical fallacy and an excellent illustration of how "research" (in anti-vaccine world) is a far cry from actual research in the real world. I'm not going to delve into her letter very much, since Dr. Novella and Orac both covered a good deal of what was wrong with it, but I will point my readers to discussions of how Ms. Tocco she tried to twist the Bible to support her ideology.
What I want to focus on is the person responsible for giving Ms. Tocco space to spew her bile, Michigan Live's Director of Community Engagement, Jen Eyer.
Showing posts with label Mary Tocco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mary Tocco. Show all posts
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Praying, in Vain, for Exemption
In polite conversation, especially with strangers, there are some topics that you should just avoid. Anything related to politics or religion can, unless you really know your audience, produce rather, shall we say, heated disagreements. Okay, let's be real. When politics and religion come up, people can get vehemently argumentative. There tends to be such a strong personal investment in political and religious beliefs that to question the belief is seen as somehow questioning or even denigrating the individual. From personal experience, it's hard to avoid that even when sticking to the facts and avoiding personal opinion. So people tend to steer clear of such conversation topics in order to play nice, keep the peace and avoid jeopardizing friendships.
Vaccines have become a topic similar to politics and religion. Anytime I meet someone new and the subject arises (and even with good friends, on occasion), there's always this sense of trepidation. Has the person I'm talking to read something on the interwebz that they found convincing enough to distrust vaccines? How personally invested are they? If they've been fooled by anti-vaccine propaganda (which, admittedly, can be quite convincing to someone who has not been following things for a while), what arguments will they use to justify their beliefs? The rationalizations will very likely draw politics or religion (or both) into the mix, and given how intertwined are personal identity and political/religious beliefs, sticking solely to facts and reason aren't likely to sway the person. In such cases, fighting fire with fire, so to speak, might work, but it's a risky proposition, especially when using religious arguments.
The problem is that once you start bringing religion into an argument dealing with non-religious policies and topics, you get bad religion and bad policy. Take, for instance, a religiously-based list of anti-vaccine arguments [EDIT 8/12/14: updated link to a cached version of the page, as the original appears to have been taken down] recently forwarded to me.
Vaccines have become a topic similar to politics and religion. Anytime I meet someone new and the subject arises (and even with good friends, on occasion), there's always this sense of trepidation. Has the person I'm talking to read something on the interwebz that they found convincing enough to distrust vaccines? How personally invested are they? If they've been fooled by anti-vaccine propaganda (which, admittedly, can be quite convincing to someone who has not been following things for a while), what arguments will they use to justify their beliefs? The rationalizations will very likely draw politics or religion (or both) into the mix, and given how intertwined are personal identity and political/religious beliefs, sticking solely to facts and reason aren't likely to sway the person. In such cases, fighting fire with fire, so to speak, might work, but it's a risky proposition, especially when using religious arguments.
The problem is that once you start bringing religion into an argument dealing with non-religious policies and topics, you get bad religion and bad policy. Take, for instance, a religiously-based list of anti-vaccine arguments [EDIT 8/12/14: updated link to a cached version of the page, as the original appears to have been taken down] recently forwarded to me.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Mary Tocco, Is She Mistaken or Misrepresenting?
Something that has been noted here and elsewhere over the years is that anti-vaccine activists generally play rather loose and free with facts. They have this tendency to misrepresent reality in a way that suggests support for their opinions, and sometimes they even downright fabricate "facts" that have no basis in the real world. Take the long-debunked claim that vaccines contain anti-freeze. (They don't.) Because their goal is to stir up fears about vaccines, they latch onto scary-sounding chemical names and equate them with all manner of ills. Where nuance is called for, they resort to hyperbole. Their goal is fear, not truth.
Mary Tocco is no exception. I came across an article she wrote August 2 entitled "Seasonal Flu Vaccines, Are They Safe or Necessary?". Other than the poor word choice (I think they are generally safe and necessary in order to protect the greatest portion of the population; are they really only safe or only necessary?), I'll give you one guess as to what she thinks. In true anti-vaccine activist form, she jumps straight into getting things wrong in the very first paragraph:
Mary Tocco is no exception. I came across an article she wrote August 2 entitled "Seasonal Flu Vaccines, Are They Safe or Necessary?". Other than the poor word choice (I think they are generally safe and necessary in order to protect the greatest portion of the population; are they really only safe or only necessary?), I'll give you one guess as to what she thinks. In true anti-vaccine activist form, she jumps straight into getting things wrong in the very first paragraph:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
