Sharyl Attkisson’s piece on CBS News Friday night ties three vaccine defenders — the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two and Dr. Paul Offit — to vaccine manufactures through grants, business interests and other financial ties.
It’s a good piece — read or watch the CBS piece here.
There’s always a bit of danger with these types of stories. We never know whether corporate funding of politicians or other backers is the chicken or the egg. Imagine a politician who strongly believes in ethanol. He’s likely to get campaign backing from corn growers. But so too is the politician who is willing to sell his vote, or who is simply pandering to Iowa voters. So what can we infer when we see such a contribution?
In the same way, it makes sense that the vaccine industry would support Every Child By Two, as the group’s stated interest (promoting vaccines as a means of public health) happens to dovetail nicely with the interests of vaccine manufacturers. If you concede the very best intentions for Every Child By Two, you’d still expect the vaccine industry to do what they could to support the group’s mission. Right?
What appears damning in the piece is the vaccine defenders’ lack of transparency. There’s usually nothing wrong with taking money if you’re a politician, a non-profit, etc; but the appearances suffer it isn’t above-board. According to Attkisson, the AAP, Every Child By Two and Offit all refused to reveal their possible conflicts of interest, and refused to be interviewed for the story. [UPDATE: A commenter says this is not true.] [UPDATE 2: Offit also says this is not true] That, more than anything, made Attkisson’s piece compelling.
Anyway, as I’d expected, it’s definitely something to debate.
Every number quoted by Attkisson was public information, meaning those potential COIs have been revealed. This was lousy journalism, plain and simple. And why should Offit agree to be interviewed by a scientifically illiterate TV news reporter? Attkisson clearly has an agenda - how did the Voices for Vaccines fax to CBS end up on a rabid anti-vaccine website so quickly?
If Attkisson wants to report on conflicts of interest, she can talk to those who haven’t revealed theirs. Dr. Mark Geier, a darling of the anti-vax movement, is a professional witness in vax-related lawsuits. Dr. Jon Poling failed to disclose that the 2006 case study he wrote was about his own daughter, or that he was at that time a plaintiff in a vaccine case. David Kirby is bankrolled by anti-vaccine interests. There’s plenty more.
AutismNewsBeat wrote: “David Kirby is bankrolled by anti-vaccine interests”- uh?…where’s the money in that? what is it that they are trying to sell and how exactly is it profitable?
on one hand you have billions of dollars from vaccine industry, on the other a handful of parents trying to recover their children injured by vaccination?
for someone who is after money the choice is clear. so it is for people with concsience….
“Vocies for (keeping toxins in ) Vaccines”, shame on you! I am delaying my child’s vaccinations until there is a study of vaccinated vs never vaccinated children!!!! volunteering to be on the unvx’ed side.
“Are you nuts”
David Kirby is paid by groups who promote the unproven idea that vaccines cause autism. Mr. Kirby is a contributor to their blog and they paid for his trip to London to promoted these ideas.
On one hand you have a lot of parents who are seeking damages from the government for autism as a vaccine injury. It’s tough to point out that families such as mine might act from a profit motive, but it is a real conflict of interest.
Given the testimony in this trial, calling the vaccine/autism link “unproven” is mild, to say the least. Even Dr. Mumper–from the Autism Research Institute–made it clear that for the vast majority of the mainstream medic
That is inaccurate, and a great example of why the CBS story is flawed and leads in inaccurate impressions in the community.
Dr. Offit declined to be intereviewed. His potential conflicts were supplied to CBS news before the story, in response to CBS news’ request.
Thanks for bringing this up, ThoJ. I’m looking into it and I’ll correct it if needed.
-Sam