Katie Couric promotes dangerous fear mongering with show on the HPV vaccine

9

On July 10, 2012, I received an email from a producer at Katie, Katie Couric’s daytime talk show, about a show the program was planning on vaccines. Here was the pitch:

I am interested in talking to Seth Mnookin about his book ‘The Panic Virus.’ I am researching a story about parents who opt out of immunizations for their children because of their personal beliefs. As Seth knows, parents’ fears have lead to a resurgence of diseases like measles and Pertussis and it poses a real danger to society. The goal of the hour will be to better inform the public that still questions links between vaccination and autism and need to better understand the scientific truth.

Over a period of about a month, the producer and I spoke for a period of several hours before she told me that the show was no longer interested in hearing from me on air. Still, I came away from the interaction somewhat heartened: The producer seemed to have a true grasp of the dangers of declining vaccination rates and she stressed repeatedly that her co-workers, including Couric herself, did not view this as an “on the one hand, on the other hand” issue but one in which facts and evidence clearly lined up on one side — the side that overwhelmingly supports the importance and efficacy of vaccines.

Apparently, that was all a load of crap. Here’s the teaser for tomorrow’s show on the HPV vaccine

The HPV vaccine is considered a life-saving cancer preventer … but is it a potentially deadly dose for girls? Meet a mom who claims her daughter died after getting the HPV vaccine, and hear all sides of the HPV vaccine controversy.

Written By: Seth Mnookin
continue to source article at blogs.plos.org

9 COMMENTS

  1. Since Seth’s comment was apparently written on the 3rd December and was based on the ‘teaser’, without reference to the complete interview in the show; it’s worth going to this link to view the actual broadcast as it was shown, and judge on the basis of that.

    For what its worth, I thought the interview gave a fair presentation, but because of the obvious complexities of the issue, and the short time devoted to it, largely failed to enlighten the audience.
    Ok as a starting point for further study.

  2. I tend to look on the science sceptics as an evolutionary necessity , I mean to say ; what if the vaccines and inoculations did at some point cause disease by some process ? If some people didn’t use it then they would not get the disease and through natural selection that behaviour would win through , until of course they were sceptical of something that was an absolute necessity , again natural selection would weed out the over sceptical .

    • In reply to #2 by RichardofYork:

      I tend to look on the science sceptics as an evolutionary necessity , I mean to say ; what if the vaccines and inoculations did at some point cause disease by some process ? If some people didn’t use it then they would not get the disease and through natural selection that behaviour would win throug…

      You are confusing the word sceptic with denier.

      These are not people that are reluctant to believe scientific information on faith and then do the research, these are people that have decided what they want to believe and spend their time finding information that reinforces their beliefs.

      • In reply to #5 by alaskansee:

        In reply to #2 by RichardofYork:

        I tend to look on the science sceptics as an evolutionary necessity , I mean to say ; what if the vaccines and inoculations did at some point cause disease by some process ? If some people didn’t use it then they would not get the disease and through natural selecti…

        Well who knows what goes on in their minds? Sceptical as I understand it just means doubting , I wasn’t aware it had other connotations pertaining to investigation, I meant to get across the idea that all behaviours can be under selective pressure and that Humans may still be evolving by that “plague” scenario however unlikely it may be

        • In reply to #7 by RichardofYork:

          In reply to #5 by alaskansee:

          In reply to #2 by RichardofYork:

          Well who knows what goes on in their minds? Sceptical as I understand it just means doubting , I wasn’t aware it had other connotations pertaining to investigation, I meant to get across the idea that all behaviours can be under selective pressure and that Humans may still be evolving by that “plague” scenario however unlikely it may be.

          We do, on account of them telling us. Skeptic (which I think looks nicer with a k) does indeed just mean doubt but again that’s not what these people are describing, they are describing denying reality with their preconceived ideas.

          That’s not sceptical or skeptical.

          There’s nothing unlikely about evolution continuing, but it’s happening to everyone not just those who understand it or not to those who deny it.

  3. The important comments provided by Dr Harper were that the vaccine only lasts 5 years and that the newer Pap tests detect almost 100 percent pre cancer and that early detection treatments are also close to 100 percent effective. Basically, the vaccine may not be necessary and not completely effective. I trust in the science methodology, but that is not to say I trust large pharma to always be completely honest or always represent their products with complete honesty. I strongly support most vaccines, but put me in the “confused” group on this one.

  4. I mean that the plague arising from the vaccination was unlikely , not evolution , natural selection has less and less to work with on the modern human due to medical science mostly and our continuously rising morality .

Leave a Reply