I am just one of thousands of doctors, scientists and parents who do not think that mass vaccination with H1N1 swine-flu vaccine is a good idea.
-Phillip DeMio, MD
Now, let's ignore for a moment that "mass vaccination" is the most effective way to use vaccines to prevent disease, if only because it does not appear that there will be enough vaccine to mass vaccinate. DeMio makes it sound like there are thousands of doctors and thousands of scientists and thousands of parents that question the swine flu vaccine. Rather, the "thousands" is the sum total of those groups, whose distribution we have clarified in graphic form.The Festival board agrees with DeMio on one point and one point only (perhaps in the entire universe on points). One should always carefully consider the costs and benefits of any medical intervention. For example, parents of autistic children should very carefully consider the potentially fatal risks relative to the zero chance of benefit from the chelation therapy available form DeMio's medical practice, which focuses on "treating" autism with a variety of methods that have no scientific support. One should also carefully consider what a certification by his American Medical Autism Board (identified by Quackwatch as a "Dubious Certifying Board") actually tells you about the doctor with that certificate.
But, this isn't about DeMio. Unlike the Jenny McCarthys and Oprah Winfreys of the world, medical doctors do not have the luxury of being idiots; happily ignorant doctors are either incompetent hazards or unethical asses. This is about the editors of The Columbus Dispatch. The "Letters to the Editor" section of papers provides an important public forum for the exchange of opinions, even asinine ones. Those opinions, however, need to be informed by the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan is credited with saying:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not their own facts.
DeMio supports his position in the swine flu debate with the following "facts":
The risk of autism, brain damage and immune dysfunction is high, especially for children, pregnant women and elders.
-Phillip DeMio, MD (emphasis ours)
Except that the scientific evidence (or here, here, and here for a small sampling of specific studies) shows that "the risk of autism, brain damage and immune dysfunction is" not high. There is no difference between the factual basis of DeMio's argument and a letter opposing NASA's research program based on the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth.
DeMio's medical degree and certification board lend false credibility to his claims, including discouraging some of the most "at-risk" groups to eschew vaccination. His credentials falsely suggest that he knows what he is talking about. While The Columbus Dispatch editors have every right, and perhaps a responsibility, to print inflammatory opinions, they also have a responsibility to the public to ensure that the evidence does not completely contradict the available scientific evidence.
In case you are confused, we have created a helpful guide for distinguishing between statements of opinion and statements of fact (including shit that was made up, masquerading as fact):
STATEMENT OF OPINION: I think the risk of autism, brain damage and immune dysfunction is high. . .
STATEMENT OF FACT: The risk of autism, brain damage and immune dysfunction is high. . .
When you move from impartially moderating the debate (despite political debates this still entails preventing debaters to from just making shit up) to allowing a free-for-all shouting match that is unconstrained by evidence, you have taken an active role in the demagoguery. In the United States, there is freedom of speech. The Columbus Dispatch, however, is not required to provide a venue for misinformation.
The Columbus Dispatch, for betraying the public trust, confusing opinion with fact, and restoring the credibility of CNN's fact-checking, you are the newest member of The Festival of Idiots. We hear print newspapers are dying. Maybe it is natural selection.













Where did you get the impression that the editorial page (or letters to the editor) was a source of facts?