4 ms·

Would it be so hard to state the limitations of their investigation, and clearly explain that a few key misconceptions are incorrect? Based on their original c

Would it be so hard to state the limitations of their investigation, and clearly explain that a few key misconceptions are incorrect? Based on their original censored article, it seems like they're heavily invested to make things seem problematic, and carefully avoid any indication that the status quo is acceptable. I don't think it's purely misinterpretation when anti vax people become generally skeptical of govt and pharma corps. Like could they not just say the vaccine is safe in these articles based on other evidence? They care about people being able to share their posts to Facebook, I can't understand why they aren't trying even a little to reduce the possibility for public misinterpretation.

epgui 5y ago
They were not putting into question the safety of vaccines, that issue was tangential. I know the article has the literal words "patient safety" and raises potential safety concerns, but that all has to be read in full context: advocating for better data controls and better rigour in research. It might seem obvious to you that the article would be misinterpreted or parts of it taken out of context by a lay public, but scientific publications are meant to be read mainly by other scientists, and this paper was written with that specific public in mind. Even if this was intended as official public health communication, which it wasn't, public health communication is an absolute nightmare of a minefield. There's absolutely nothing you can ever say that won't be misinterpreted or misunderstood by some people, and the game is all about minimizing the potential for that. It's easier said than done. (And again, this paper was meant to be shared among expert colleagues in the field.)
- srcreigh 5y ago
  Considering that BMJ made an entire article objecting to FB fact checking BMJ for public audiences [0], I really have to disagree that the article was only meant for expert eyes. Given that, a few disclaimers and limitations to help quell public misinterpretation is required. Not to do so is irresponsible. [0]: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95
  - epgui 5y ago
    I really don't think the objection (and reasons for the objection) to the fact check (1) and the intended audience being largely composed of experts (2) are mutually exclusive.
    - srcreigh 5y ago
      There should be 0 problem with not being able to share publicly if it was not meant for public audiences. They really can only have one or the other. Experts can email each other.

epgui 5y ago

They were not putting into question the safety of vaccines, that issue was tangential. I know the article has the literal words "patient safety" and raises potential safety concerns, but that all has to be read in full context: advocating for better data controls and better rigour in research. It might seem obvious to you that the article would be misinterpreted or parts of it taken out of context by a lay public, but scientific publications are meant to be read mainly by other scientists, and this paper was written with that specific public in mind. Even if this was intended as official public health communication, which it wasn't, public health communication is an absolute nightmare of a minefield. There's absolutely nothing you can ever say that won't be misinterpreted or misunderstood by some people, and the game is all about minimizing the potential for that. It's easier said than done. (And again, this paper was meant to be shared among expert colleagues in the field.)

srcreigh 5y ago
Considering that BMJ made an entire article objecting to FB fact checking BMJ for public audiences [0], I really have to disagree that the article was only meant for expert eyes. Given that, a few disclaimers and limitations to help quell public misinterpretation is required. Not to do so is irresponsible. [0]: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95
- epgui 5y ago
  I really don't think the objection (and reasons for the objection) to the fact check (1) and the intended audience being largely composed of experts (2) are mutually exclusive.
  - srcreigh 5y ago
    There should be 0 problem with not being able to share publicly if it was not meant for public audiences. They really can only have one or the other. Experts can email each other.