Close X
Get more out of
by joining the site for free
Free 17-point plan to great health
Twice weekly e-news bulletins
Access to our News, Forums and Blogs
Sign up for free and claim your
17-point plan to great health
Free 17-point plan to great health

Twice weekly e-news bulletins

Access to our News, Forums and Blogs

If you want to read our in-depth research articles or
have our amazing magazine delivered to your home
each month, then you have to pay.

Click here if you're interested
Helping you make better health choices

What Doctors Don't Tell You

In shops now or delivered to your home from only £3.50 an issue!

August 2018 (Vol. 3 Issue 6)

Getting the vax facts wrong



Bryan Hubbard is Publisher and co-editor of WDDTY. He is a former Financial Times journalist. He is a Philosophy graduate of London University. Bryan is also the author of several books, including The Untrue Story of You and Secrets of the Drugs Industry.














Getting the vax facts wrong

February 28th 2018, 15:43

The media is pulled by the forces of simplification and sensationalism, says American sociologist Robert McChesney. I'd add a third 'S' to the list: suppression. All three are amply exercised when it comes to reporting on vaccinations, a touchy subject that has had journalists tying themselves up in knots for decades.

Simplification and sensationalism were the hallmarks of the coverage of gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield and his discovery that the triple MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine was causing inflammation in the guts of a small group of children, and which, he postulated, could presage autism.

Vaccination rates started to fall, and so researchers had to undo the damage done by Wakefield's press coverage by 'proving' that he was wrong, and that the MMR didn't cause autism. Of course, he never exactly said it did, but that's simplification and sensationalism for you.

Cowed after being caught committing the first two 'S's, the media went into suppression mode, and now can't write a bad word about vaccinations, even when it's in the public interest that they do so.

Medical journalist Rob Wipond has noted the phenomenon with the reporting of a worrying reaction to the flu vaccine.1

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had discovered that women vaccinated against the pandemic pH1N1 flu strain in 2009, and who were vaccinated again a year later, were nearly eight times more likely to suffer a miscarriage within 28 days of receiving the second vaccination.2

Pretty damning stuff, not that you'd realize it from the media coverage that followed. The health website, STAT, announced the study with the headline that the risk of miscarriage 'may' increase after a flu shot—when the study seemed pretty definitive, Wipond points out—while the Associated Press, which feeds many news outlets, announced that the study "prompts call to examine flu vaccine and miscarriage," when this had been the purpose of the study in the first place.

The Washington Post displayed the greatest vacillation in the face of bad news with a double headline. It first declared that researchers "find hint of a link" between the flu shot and miscarriage—although a 7.7-times increased risk might be considered slightly more than a hint—but even this mealy-mouthed heading proved too much for the Post's sub-editors, who quickly changed it to: "What to know about a study of flu vaccine and miscarriage."3

Wipond discovered the CDC had set the news response by briefing journalists from the three news organizations beforehand in a private meeting. They met lead author James Donahue, who told the British Medical Journal: "We wanted to make sure that they got a full story on this and carried the right messages—the messages that we think
are important."

Duly briefed by the expert, none of the journalists even mentioned the 7.7-times increased risk in their reports, and suggested that "no knowledgeable person could reasonably interpret the study as a serious cause for concern." They all pointed out several times throughout their pieces that experts consider the vaccine to be safe, and that pregnant women should still go ahead and get the shot.

In other words, Donahue told them there was no cause for concern, and the journalists duly complied.

Donahue was right in one regard: large-scale, mass-population reviews—known as epidemiological studies—can't absolutely prove that one thing causes another, because there are so many variables at play, such as age and lifestyle choices. By the same measure, the same studies can't prove that vaccinations definitively prevent disease—because, again, factors such as hygiene, nutrition and sanitation could have just as important an impact—but it's surprising how rarely this is pointed out.

Other experts, such as Chris Del Mar, a professor of public health at Bond University in Australia and editor for the independent Cochrane group, believed the journalists did a terrible disservice to the public. The vaccine isn't even effective, he said, and while there is a risk of miscarriage if a woman develops flu while she's pregnant, the chances of that happening are slight compared to the risk of miscarriage posed by getting vaccinated.

While sensationalism and simplification are not desirable, especially when it comes to medical news, suppression isn't much better.

Latest Tweet


Since 1989, WDDTY has provided thousands of resources on how to beat asthma, arthritis, depression and many other chronic conditions..

Start by looking in our fully searchable database, active and friendly community forums and the latest health news.

Positive SSL Wildcard

Facebook Twitter

© 2010 - 2018 WDDTY Publishing Ltd.
All Rights Reserved