Integrity and Honesty, Part 2

J.B. Handley

Integrity and honesty are pretty important to me. If someone gives their word about something, I expect them to keep it. If, through no fault of their own, they fail to follow through on their word, that's one thing. But if they make a promise to do (or not do) something and then break that promise, well, let's just say that it does not reflect well upon them. Even worse when that breach of trust comes amidst other comments that demonstrate a disregard for ethical conduct.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt unless I have really good evidence otherwise. Even if I disagree with someone, my first response, in general, is to assume that they have good intentions and mean well. Perhaps it's a naive approach, but I would rather approach others how I would like to be approached. I don't want to be prejudged, so I try not to do so to others. But that can only last so long in the face of contradicting evidence.

Such is the case recently with J.B. Handley, founder of Generation Rescue.

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.

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.

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.

Autism One: Pick Up Your Police Escort at the Reception Desk

Time to take a trip back to some subject matter that was at the creation of this blog: censorship, autism and anti-vaccination sentiments. It should come as no surprise to anyone who reads here regularly that I take these issues rather seriously. Generally speaking, censorship seems to go hand in hand with the anti-vaccination folks within the autism community (and let it just be said that the autism community is very broad, with the anti-vaxers representing a rather small minority, thankfully). Silencing dissent is a favored tactic, as evidenced by the "editorializing" favored by such luminary and (mis-)informative sites as Age of Autism, among others. Where truth and reality rear their ugly heads, there will always be a moderator close at hand to protect their quailing, fragile readers, making such reason-based comments disappear down the memory hole before a single electron hits the screen of an AoA reader.

Should you decide to attend an event organized by those with anti-vaccination notions, be not afraid of having your tender sensibilities bruised, for there will be an ever-so-polite and helpful event organizer to call the police to haul out any suspicious-looking persons. Yes, though they may be mild-mannered and behaving themselves, who knows when they will utter uncomfortable truths? Best to remove them, without any justification, before any charlatans or quacks can be challenged, before any parents, trying their best to cope with a child with a disability about which, frankly, not a great deal is known, can have the scales removed from their eyes and their wallets protected from expensive and utterly useless treatments. Fear not, for brave folks like Teri Arranga will quickly summon hotel security and police to deal with anyone she thinks may pose a threat to your delicate sensibilities.

An Outing at IMFAR

The International Meeting For Autism Research, or IMFAR, is coming up pretty soon. May 12-14, to be precise, at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego, CA. This will be the eleventh year for the conference, where Autism Spectrum Disorder researchers will gather from around the world. Much like other specialty conferences, IMFAR gives scientists an opportunity to share their ASD findings with colleagues and to promote further research. Researchers submit their abstracts and, if selected, present them to attendees.

One such abstract is scheduled to be presented at 9:00am on Friday, May 13. The presentation is titled Parent Reported Status and Expectations for Their Autistic Student Children: An Analysis of the 2007 National Household Education Survey, presented by M. J. Carey.

Kim Stagliano: A Catty Confession

A fellow blogger sent me the following screenshots from Age of Autism's Facebook page:

Age of Autism's All About Debate...Except When They're Not

The primary reason that I started this blog was because, for reasons unknown to me, I was banned from ever commenting again on the Age of Autism blog. I took a serious look back at the comments that I had posted and perused their commenting policy and, apart from getting slightly off topic on a thread, couldn't see where I had violated the policy. When managing editor Kim Stagliano stepped in to warn everyone that we were getting off topic, I apologized (though I think that that post, along with a few others in the exchange, never saw the light of day).

I even sent a polite e-mail to Ms. Stagliano asking what I had done to warrant being banned from commenting over there. The only response I got was an auto-reply. I continue to wait in vain.

Censored on Australia: A Grieving Family and Baseless Accusations

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Australia: A Grieving Family and Baseless Accusations, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Censored on Chicago Tribune Protecting Consumers Against Natural Supplement (Again)

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Chicago Tribune Protecting Consumers Against Natural Supplement (Again), please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Censored on Rosemary Mathis Speaks Out on her Daughter's Gardasil Vaccine Injury

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Rosemary Mathis Speaks Out on her Daughter's Gardasil Vaccine Injury, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Kim Stagliano: "We Don't Censor, We Editorialize"

Liz Ditz of the I Speak of Dreams blog alerted me to some items from Age of Autism's Facebook page:

At AoA's Facebook page:

RJ: Stop removing comments that oppose your views, that is called "censorship":

Age of Autism: No, it's called editorial. We have made a conscious decision on our content - and we're clear in our moderation guidelines. Your next snipe will escort you out the door.

Kim

More at http://counteringageofautism.blogspot.com/2010/05/sure-theres-no-sniping-on-aoa.html:

"We have mdae editorial decisions that affect our moderation, yes. And because of that, we have avoided the cesspool of sniping and autism denial on so many other sites." --Stagliano on Age of Autism's facebook page.

Well, that's certainly interesting. For those who are interested, AoA's commenting policy, as of May 19, 2010, 1:12pm EDT is:

We reserve the right to delete any comments sent to us at our discretion. Reasons include, but are not limited to:

• are abusive, off-topic, or use excessive foul language
• contain racist, sexist, homophobic or other slurs
• are solicitations and/or advertising for personal blogs and websites
• are posted with the explicit intention of provoking other commenters, writers or the staff at Age of Autism

It would appear that censoring editorializing comments that do not agree with the party line but are otherwise respectfully written, non-advertising and not intended to provoke other commenters, writers or staff at AoA fall under the "not limited to" portion of their policy.

What does it really mean, though, to "editorialize" something? Well, a quick search at Dictionary.com came up with this:

1. to set forth one's position or opinion on some subject in, or as if in, an editorial.
2. to inject personal interpretations or opinions into an otherwise factual account.

Alright. So, it is okay for people who read the blog and agree with their stance to post comments with personal interpretations or opinions, but not okay for those who disagree with their stance to post their interpretations or opinions. In other words:

to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

Hey! That's the legal definition of "censor"!

What strikes me is that not only do the editors of Age of Autism censor comments that disagree with their views or point out errors of fact, but they do not apply their commenting policy equally. When people who support the AoA majority viewpoint post comments that are offensive, off-topic, use foul language or contain racist, sexist ("whore" is a favorite there) or other slurs, those comments do not get "editorialized".

In the end, Kim, you and your cronies at Age of Autism do censor comments. You can call a skunk a rose, but it would still stink.

Censored on How to Actually Save the Vaccine Program

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article How to Actually Save the Vaccine Program, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Censored on Olmsted on Autism: Gone Gary Gone

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Olmsted on Autism: Gone Gary Gone, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Censored on Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Andrew Wakefield

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Andrew Wakefield, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Censored on Why Isn't the Media Really Listening During Autism "Awareness" Month?

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Why Isn't the Media Really Listening During Autism "Awareness" Month?, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Censored on Vaccine Contamination: Pig Virus DNA Found in Rotarix

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Vaccine Contamination: Pig Virus DNA Found in Rotarix, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Censored on Chicago Tribune Buys Award With CDC’s Help

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Chicago Tribune Buys Award With CDC’s Help, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.

Censored on Who Knew Mercury was Bad?

If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article Who Knew Mercury was Bad?, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.