The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Vaccination saves lives > Comments

Vaccination saves lives : Comments

By Chrys Stevenson, published 29/12/2011

Why should quacks and frauds be allowed a public platform?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
stevenlmeyer,

Find much to agree with you in what you say.

However, there's several threads going on here with the pro-vaccination types. A first is a push for greater public awareness, so that without any additional regulation, the AVN will lose credibility and influence. "Naturally" so to speak. Their actions at the Woodford festival - and writings here and elsewhere - add to this effect.

The next approach is to lobby the Woodford festival - to either not have Meryl there or have her against other speakers. The Woodford festival is a private entity. They can make their own *choice* about who they have and do not have on. The exercise of that choice is a private prerogative - it does not mean there is any supression of freedom of speech - I see that as when there is some legal force from regulation or other government agency stopping someone from doing something. I do not feel recommending someone use their private discretion in a particular way to be limiting freedom of speech.

OK, the last string of the pro-vaccination people *is* to use Government power to stop someone from saying something, and perhaps that is prevention of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does however have limits based on the associated harm. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example. Yes, balancing out the prevention of harm against impacts on freedom of speech is a delicate issue. But it is only this last element of the pro-vaccination approach that has implications here. It is important not to forget that.
Posted by JohnA, Thursday, 29 December 2011 7:54:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Increasingly, we live in a culture of fear and distrust. Don't trust the government; don't trust 'Big Pharma';>>

I hate to throw a spanner in the works but there is REASON to be suspicious of "Big Pharma."

Here is how Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet put it in 2004:

"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry"

(As quoted in "Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies", PLoS Medicine, http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138)

Big Pharma does hype its "blockbuster drugs," the underlying data frequently fails to support the headline conclusions and pharmaceutical companies do game the drug trial process. It is a disgrace that so much professional development in the medical profession is funded by Big Pharma who use the occasion to "educate" doctors in the "advantages" of their drugs.

It is the failure of the medical profession to address these real issues that allows the likes of Meryl Dorey to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about vaccinations.

If you want to silence the Meryl Dorey's of the world you have to start by asking your personal doctor whether he attends any course funded directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry. Merely asking the question wiull make him start thinking about this issue.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 29 December 2011 8:18:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If you want to silence the Meryl Dorey's of the world you have to start by asking your personal doctor whether he attends any course funded directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry."

Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 29 December 2011 8:18:18 PM

Those are two un-related issues. Conflating vaccination with Big Pharma is unreasonable & unnecessary.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 29 December 2011 8:26:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I agree that vaccination is a very good thing for the vast majority, & the small risk of harm to any individual is a risk worth taking, I disagree violently with Ms Stevenson. Her dictatorial attitude, & her desire to have silenced, anyone who disagrees with her is totally unacceptable.

She sounds like a UEA climate scientists, or an Idi Amin type dictator of a tinpot African country. Either way, for me she is more likely to damage the cause she is supporting, with her style of writing, than promote it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 29 December 2011 10:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry hasbeen but I fail to see any dictatorial view in this article. What I see is a reasoned and critical analysis of the facts. Perhaps you would like to be more specific about what you think is dictatorial.
Posted by mochuck, Thursday, 29 December 2011 11:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Hasbeen
I'm not sure where in the article Ms Stevenson says that people who disagree with her need to be silenced.

On page 2 it is made quite clear that the HCCC had deemed Meryl Dorey and her organisation (the Australian Vaccination Network) to continually misrepresent information about vaccination. Ms Stevenson goes as far as to say she lies. But silence her? It's just not there.

On page 3, Ms Stevenson directly responds to "appeals to free speech" and explains why Ms Dorey never should have been asked to speak in the first place. How Ms Dorey blatantly ignores the facts. But to 'silence' "anyone who disagrees with her"? I just don't see it.

And as for her writing style, personally, I found it honest and succinct
Posted by HeidiSays, Thursday, 29 December 2011 11:24:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy