Voices for Vaccines reply to CBS
Yesterday I referred to Age of Autism, the self styled “Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic.” It has an editor, Dan Olmsted, who believes that
Autism was triggered by the commercialization of ethyl mercury in vaccines and fungicides in the 1930s.
There is a legal editor, Kent Heckenlively, who is in favour of pro vaccine doctors,
those guilty of the enormous crime of harming our children being consigned to hell-fire and damnation.
Then there is the managing editor, Kim Stagliano, who may need to consult her legal editor after her latest scoop. Someone at CBS leaked a fax from Voices for Vaccines that Age of Autism published under Ms Stagliano’s byline with the headline,
Vaccine Industry Group Calls on Couric and Attkisson for CBS Retraction
Vaccine Industry Group? That suggests an organization that speaks for and is funded by the vaccine industry. However, according to their website
The most important goal of Voices For Vaccines is to provide clear, accessible, science-based information about vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases. Our leadership consists of scientists and concerned individuals who are totally committed to supporting continued efforts to eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases. We accept no funding from governments or vaccine companies.
Voices for Vaccines works in partnership with a number of organizations like Every Child by 2 and the American Academy of Pediatrics. There are no drug company representatives on its steering committee. There is only one staff member and their office is provided by a not for profit organization, The Task Force for Child Survival and Development. Vaccine Industry Group? Hardly.
Here is the letter that was sent. I have redacted all contact information, though it published unredacted on the AoA website.
Voices For Vaccines objects to the defamatory allegations made by the CBS Evening News on Friday, July 25, against the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, with our colleague Dr Paul Offit singled out for baseless criticism.
It is our privilege to partner with these institutions in our mission to disseminate reliable information about vaccines. These groups advocate for immunization based on the overwhelming evidence for the lifesaving power of vaccination, and motivated by a sincere concern for the health of America’s children. It is preposterous and deeply offensive for CBS to suggest otherwise by insinuating that the pharmaceutical industry improperly influences the views of these vaccine advocates.
An obvious starting point for an unbiased reporter assigned to investigate this possibility would have been to determine whether the advocates’ recommendations were in accord with the scientific consensus on immunization, as articulated by neutral bodies such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (In fact, all three subjects of the CBS story do promote vaccination according to federal guidelines )
In contrast, Sharyl Attkisson relied solely upon tangential observations in concluding that the judgment of these respected authorities has been co-opted by drug companies. Ms Attkisson’s choice to pursue her story even after failing to uncover any evidence of malfeasance reveals not bias on the part of the story’s subjects, but on the part of Ms Attkisson herself Professionalism required her to acknowledge that the targets of her story have done nothing other than emphasize to the public that which is well known to science. that vaccines allow children to grow up safe and healthy.
(page 2)
We call upon CBS to issue a retraction of Ms. Attkisson’s report and an apology to the individuals and institutions whose good and honorable work in the field of immunization has been smeared. We further ask CBS to reflect upon the fact that it does not befit a user of the public airwaves to broadcast misleading claims about the most important public health measure of our time
Sincerely,
This strikes me as a reasonable and reasoned response to a terrible piece of journalism. Ms Stagliano does not comment on the substance of the letter. But the headline and the accompanying graphic suggest that this is a story about Big Pharma trying to gag the media to prevent unpleasant truths about their conflicts of interest being published.
Graphic from Age of Autism
The truth is somewhat different. As my fellow bloggers Orac, Kev and Autism Newsbeat have already pointed out, the reporter on this case, Sharyl Attkisson, provided no new information. Every fact in her story is a matter of public record. And many of those facts are mangled. Take for example Dr Offit’s academic research chair financed by $1.5 million from Merck. Actually it is a $2 million chair and his institution provide the rest of the endowment. Endowment means that Dr Offit is free to spend the money as he sees fit. Merck, by writing the cheque, have given him more independence not less.
Ms Attkisson is running true to form though. Orac reminds us that he had reason to take her to task for anti vaccine crankery last year as well. Reading her articles it is almost as if she has a direct line to the anti-vaccine fanatics. She repeats their favourite line of attack against Dr Offit, that he once said that an infant’s immune system was robust enough to tolerate a theoretical dose of 10,000 vaccines at once. Dr Offit was not suggesting that we do this. He was merely using this to point out that the current vaccine schedule was well within safety levels. Nevertheless it is routinely trotted out to paint him as a monster.
Maybe she does have a direct line. Somebody leaked that fax to AoA and she was one of the recipients. Perhaps CBS should investigate their “investigative correspondent.” And if they find that her ties to a particular faction make her less than credible as a journalist I am sure that Kim and Kent and Dan will welcome her with open arms to the “Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic.”
This is not to say that journalists should not be committed. But if you believe in something you should use all of your journalistic skills to make the best possible case. In contrast this is more like allowing personal prejudice to dull your professionalism and produce lazy, shoddy propaganda that appeals to nobody except the converted.
Perhaps Ms Attkisson should examine the career of the late Charles Wheeler to learn how to combine committment with integrity in what should be a noble profession.
SEE ALSO
