Jenny McCarthy Jokes and Logical Fallacies

The paper I'm about to present was written in 2002, and in the fast-paced world of the internet may seem out of date - after all, Youtube hadn't even been invented then, and Wikipedia and Google were shiny new businesses. But in fact, Davies et al's study of anti-vaccination websites is as relevant today as it was then - perhaps even more so [1].

There has been so much published about H1N1 swine flu in recent months that despite my keen interest in the topic (being an infectious diseases clinician involved with determining policy and strategic pandemic flu planning in my own hospital as well as looking after clinical cases), I can barely keep up with the medical aspects of the disease, never mind the rest of the information. But, as is ever the case, much of the other material that is in the public’s eye seems to be based on uninformed opinion and comment, rather than scientific facts.

I had intended to talk about the “incalculable” harm that may have been done by the recent irresponsible media reporting about HPV vaccine, but then I realised that much of the actual damage can be estimated quite accurately. Previous unfounded scare-mongering about the side effects of vaccines have always resulted in measurable declines in vaccination rates, which have always translated directly into additional deaths or cases of disease.

The Daily Mail has followed yesterday's article (about the death of a young girl following vaccination against HPV) with one today from Dr Richard Halvorsen. Halvorsen's article is headlined "Dr Richard Halvorsen: I'm not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries."