This magazine cover story on vaccinations attempted to cover a lot of ground around the issues surrounding the current recommended childhood immunization schedule.
The story pointed out that just because two things appear to be associated (i.e. getting a first tooth and getting a vaccine) does not mean that one causes the other. It would have been helpful to expand on this point. The story also provided the rationale used by people who have an idea about some aspect of biology (i.e. the immune system) without grounding in the evidence for their notion. Providing additional coverage about this may also have been useful.
Although a solid report, it could have been improved:
The story included estimated cost savings that might result from full vaccination of all children born in a given year. It did not, however, mention the costs of providing this full set of vaccinations either per person or for all the children in a given birth year cohort.
Although the story included a table detailing that seeming abundance of recommended vaccinations for children to receive along with the disease(s) against which they offer protection, the story did not provide much information about the risks associated with contracting these illness and so it was a little difficult to appreciate the magnitude of benefit (i.e. disease avoidance) one might expect. Further, although the story did mention that many people today do not have first hand knowledge of these diseases, because the story did not include information about the consequences of contracting most of the diseases mentioned, it made it difficult to appreciate the benefit of treatment. Nonetheless, because the story was reasonably well-balanced overall, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
Lastly – the story neglected to detail the length of time the benefit from these vaccines could be expected to persist.
The harms associated with lack of vaccination (need for emergency medical attention, brain damage, death) for the individual as well as the potential for harm to befall fellow citizens with some degree of immune compromise was mentioned.
The story was lacking in information about the documented harms associated with the various vaccines listed as part of the recommended childhood immunization schedule.
The story cited data compiled by the CDC about the prevalence of measles before and after the introduction of the measles vaccine. And while the source for some of the other data quoted in the story (e.g. % of children starting school that are completely up to date on their vacations) was less clear, the information about lack of persuasive link between vaccination and autism was referenced.
No overt disease mongering although the continued drum beat about autism despite all the evidence is disconcerting.
The story contained a lot of information, some of which was well documented. In addition, there were good interviews with clinicians whose work involves vaccination as well as conversations with parents of children who appear to have been adversely affected either by vaccination or from its avoidance.
The treatment options – vaccination or not, as well as picking and choosing among the immunizations offered were discussed.
The story accurately portrayed the ready availability of vaccines.
The story appeared to appropriately represent the novelty of both the treatment and withholding the treatment.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.