Comments on: How (Not) to Talk About Vaccines

By: Jay Knable

Jay Knable — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:05:48 +0000

“Letting inaccurate information stand is misleading.”

I agree. So when worldwide studies consistently raise concerns over vaccine safety and effectiveness, we should take them seriously despite the unchanging positions taken by the healthcare industry and corporate interests in this country who benefit from continual blind faith in vaccines. We would not even be having this discussion if it were up to them…

By: Dorit Reiss

Dorit Reiss — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:25:48 +0000

Actually, I think that evidence-based criticism of vaccines – like criticizing the pertussis vaccine’s effectiveness, for example – is perfectly fine. Similarly, injuries that are causally related to vaccines with evidence should be acknowledged – for example, severe allergic reactions to a vaccine, and so forth. I do think that when people make claims of injuries that go against the evidence, like for seizure disorder, and criticisms of vaccines that go against the evidence, the fact that they are against the evidence should be highlighted. Letting inaccurate information stand is misleading.

I would also suggest that trying to delegitimize – unfairly – another commentator is not a good contribution to the discussion of the topic, and that maybe the speaker should address the content of the article.

By: Twyla

Twyla — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 15:21:20 +0000

Keep in mind that Dorit thinks pretty much every criticism of vaccines is inaccurate, and every reported vaccine injury is either delusion or coincidence – except for acknowledging supposedly one-in-a-million serious adverse reactions, and more common supposedly harmless reactions such as fainting after Gardasil (but no brain injury), “febrile” seizures (but no seizure disorders), and swelling at the injection site (but no chronic inflammatory issues).

By: Dorit Reiss

Dorit Reiss — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:52:21 +0000

I agree with your point about how to address the dialogue, but not with your example. By overstating vaccine risks and understating diseases risks, by legitimizing alternative schedules, I think Dr. Sears’ book has done a lot of harm.

I would also point out that the internet dialogue is harsh, and many of the anti-vaccine commentators use very harsh language, and it’s hard for even patient people never to rise to the bait. On the other hand, there is a lot of good information out there which takes vaccine concerns seriously and addresses them in depth.

The problem is that many anti-vaccine activists claim all of those sources are “industry sponsored”. Incorrectly.

I’d appreciate – and I’m saying that seriously – some thoughts on how to respond to that and help people make use of the credible information out there (and protect them against falling for inaccurate claims, like Sears’ claims about aluminum, or like those promoted by the misleadingly named National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine organization).