This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/anti-vaxxers-so-friendless-that-free-speech-is-enough-to-defeat-them

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Anti-vaxxers: so friendless that free speech is enough to defeat them Anti-vaxxers: so friendless that free speech is enough to defeat them
(35 minutes later)
With the new year, we have a new round of controversies surrounding the anti-vaccination movement. The controversy isn’t about the safety and efficacy of vaccines: that’s as settled as any question in medical science can be. Rather, it’s about how to respond to anti-vaccination and pro-disease advocates like James Maskell and Sherri Tenpenny.With the new year, we have a new round of controversies surrounding the anti-vaccination movement. The controversy isn’t about the safety and efficacy of vaccines: that’s as settled as any question in medical science can be. Rather, it’s about how to respond to anti-vaccination and pro-disease advocates like James Maskell and Sherri Tenpenny.
Maskell, CEO of US “natural health care” business Revive Primary Care, and a prominent anti-vaxxer, was interviewed on the ABC’s 7:30 programme recently, described only as a “concerned parent”. Tenpenny, also from the US, is coming to Australia in a tour organised by Stephanie Messenger, author of Melanie’s Marvellous Measles, a book aimed at children advocating exposure to this disease. Measles, which has complications including pneumonia, encephalitis and blindness, has been similarly trivialised by Tenpenny, who says: “If measles were such a deadly, horrible, disastrous disease, there wouldn’t be anybody around over 50.” Maskell, CEO of US “natural health care” business Revive Primary Care, and a prominent anti-vaxxer, was interviewed on the ABC’s 7:30 program recently, described only as a “concerned parent”. Tenpenny, also from the US, is coming to Australia in a tour organised by Stephanie Messenger, author of Melanie’s Marvellous Measles, a book aimed at children advocating exposure to this disease. Measles, which has complications including pneumonia, encephalitis and blindness, has been similarly trivialised by Tenpenny, who says: “If measles were such a deadly, horrible, disastrous disease, there wouldn’t be anybody around over 50.”
Unsurprisingly, there have been calls from bodies such as the Australian Medical Association’s council of general practice to ban Tenpenny from entering the country. The ABC has also been severely criticised for its uncritical presentation of Maskell’s views.Unsurprisingly, there have been calls from bodies such as the Australian Medical Association’s council of general practice to ban Tenpenny from entering the country. The ABC has also been severely criticised for its uncritical presentation of Maskell’s views.
How should we deal with people advocating such irresponsible and dangerous views? Before thinking about anti-science views on vaccination, it’s worth thinking about the case of climate science. In terms of the arguments, the two cases are almost perfectly parallel. The anti-science side promotes bogus experts such as Christopher Monckton, accuses mainstream scientists of being engaged in a massive global conspiracy, and complains about its views being suppressed.How should we deal with people advocating such irresponsible and dangerous views? Before thinking about anti-science views on vaccination, it’s worth thinking about the case of climate science. In terms of the arguments, the two cases are almost perfectly parallel. The anti-science side promotes bogus experts such as Christopher Monckton, accuses mainstream scientists of being engaged in a massive global conspiracy, and complains about its views being suppressed.
The difference is that anti-vaxxers are relatively few in number and politically friendless. In a sense, this makes their claims more plausible. While it’s silly to suggest a conspiracy funded by big pharma – vaccines are among the least profitable of pharmaceutical products – it’s at least more plausible than the suggestion that climate scientists around the world are conspiring to impose a communist world government, a view seriously propounded by supposed political hardheads like Nick Minchin.The difference is that anti-vaxxers are relatively few in number and politically friendless. In a sense, this makes their claims more plausible. While it’s silly to suggest a conspiracy funded by big pharma – vaccines are among the least profitable of pharmaceutical products – it’s at least more plausible than the suggestion that climate scientists around the world are conspiring to impose a communist world government, a view seriously propounded by supposed political hardheads like Nick Minchin.
Moreover, while some charlatans like Dr Andrew Wakefield have used the anti-vaccination movement to enrich themselves, there is nothing like the army of paid lobbyists, opinionators and lavishly funded thinktanks that promote climate denial. Then there is the Murdoch press, much of the business elite and the majority of the parliamentary membership of the government. And of course, the ABC itself had a prominent denialist, Maurice Newman, as chairman for a number of years.Moreover, while some charlatans like Dr Andrew Wakefield have used the anti-vaccination movement to enrich themselves, there is nothing like the army of paid lobbyists, opinionators and lavishly funded thinktanks that promote climate denial. Then there is the Murdoch press, much of the business elite and the majority of the parliamentary membership of the government. And of course, the ABC itself had a prominent denialist, Maurice Newman, as chairman for a number of years.
Precisely because they have such powerful supporters, there is no possibility that climate science deniers will be silenced, or that bogus experts like Monckton will be prevented from entering the country. On considerations of equity alone, we should not be excluding people on the grounds that they advocate views that are wrong, dangerous and unpopular, while admitting those whose wrong and dangerous views have powerful backing.Precisely because they have such powerful supporters, there is no possibility that climate science deniers will be silenced, or that bogus experts like Monckton will be prevented from entering the country. On considerations of equity alone, we should not be excluding people on the grounds that they advocate views that are wrong, dangerous and unpopular, while admitting those whose wrong and dangerous views have powerful backing.
Cases like those of neo-Nazi David Irving and “pickup artist” Julien Blanc are different, since they can be excluded on grounds of bad character. But the case for excluding Tenpenny (and, hypothetically, Monckton) rests entirely on their stated views.Cases like those of neo-Nazi David Irving and “pickup artist” Julien Blanc are different, since they can be excluded on grounds of bad character. But the case for excluding Tenpenny (and, hypothetically, Monckton) rests entirely on their stated views.
The standard arguments for free speech apply with full force here. The only way to prevent unnecessary deaths from infectious diseases is to convince parents, who want to do the best for their children, that vaccination is the right thing to do. That means refuting the claims of people like Tenpenny rather than attempting to silence them.The standard arguments for free speech apply with full force here. The only way to prevent unnecessary deaths from infectious diseases is to convince parents, who want to do the best for their children, that vaccination is the right thing to do. That means refuting the claims of people like Tenpenny rather than attempting to silence them.
None of this creates any obligation to provide anti-vaxxers and climate denialists with scarce resources like air time on national broadcasters. The only context in which these people should appear is in attempts to understand the reasons (financial, ideological and tribal) why they persist in presenting claims that have been rejected by the scientific process.None of this creates any obligation to provide anti-vaxxers and climate denialists with scarce resources like air time on national broadcasters. The only context in which these people should appear is in attempts to understand the reasons (financial, ideological and tribal) why they persist in presenting claims that have been rejected by the scientific process.
The ABC 7:30 segment failed this test miserably, and its half-hearted attempts at a correction in the transcript have done nothing to improve the situation. One way to make amends would be a report on the Tenpenny case, which might include some video evidence of her anti-science claims, but would not accord her the legitimacy associated with an interview.The ABC 7:30 segment failed this test miserably, and its half-hearted attempts at a correction in the transcript have done nothing to improve the situation. One way to make amends would be a report on the Tenpenny case, which might include some video evidence of her anti-science claims, but would not accord her the legitimacy associated with an interview.
Freedom of speech gives people like Tenpenny and Monckton (and their Australian co-thinkers) the right to state their views, but not the right to a platform or a respectful hearing. They should be allowed to speak, and exposed for the fools and liars they are.Freedom of speech gives people like Tenpenny and Monckton (and their Australian co-thinkers) the right to state their views, but not the right to a platform or a respectful hearing. They should be allowed to speak, and exposed for the fools and liars they are.