Comments on: Another Libel Suit – This Time Against Paul Offit

By: Evan Christman

Evan Christman — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:50:34 +0000

Quickly reviewing the article that you linked shows that Dr. Offit did say “each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time”. When he mentioned 100,000 he was referring to antigens. However, when he said 10,000 he was referring to vaccines. The fact is that the statement is still irresponsible.

We may have an enormous capacity to deal with antigens, but typically the antigens we are exposed to on a daily basis do not get subdermally injected into the body. They go through the skin and mucous membranes. Do we really have the same capacity to resist antigens that are directly injected into the body?

It is interesting how these so called science and skeptic blogs are so closed minded when it comes to vaccines. The fact is that the quality and type of vaccine research is thoroughly inadequate. They skewer anyone who raises questions about the sacred cow of vaccines.

I for one would like to see a large scale long term study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. Has one been done? The answer is no. To my knowledge, it hasn’t been done. If it has been done, then please point me in the right direction. How can we say that injecting children with all the vaccines that they receive is safe and effective, if we haven’t done this type of research in humans or animals?

Remember that the “experts” were telling women that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) would protect them from cancer, strokes and heart attacks prior to the Nurses Health Study. The Nurses Health Study found that HRT actually increased the likelihood of cancer, stroke and heart attacks.

By: MoZeu

MoZeu — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:44:09 +0000

Which, I might add, has no anti-SLAPP law. No doubt, the forum was selected for this very reason. Defendants could attempt to counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which is harder to establish, but has similar elements.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:37:27 +0000

Wrong. His comment was the amount of antigens in vaccines, not the vaccines themselves. You are exposed to many more bacterial, viral and other types of antigens everyday than are in a vaccine. You can read his own words here:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124

Here is one quote from that paper you might find interesting: Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen),

The liar is the one who claims he was referring to actual vaccines. Also only a liar claims that the rotavirus vaccine he invented caused intussusception and was withdrawn (that was RotaShield). And only liars claim he was on the committee that voted to add RotaTeq to the vaccine schedule (he had not been on ACIP for three years, and even so, the rules would not allow him in that decision process). Just so you know.

By: Liz Ditz

Liz Ditz — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:44:19 +0000

@15 Lone Wolf: this is a suit by an American against 3 Americans brought in a US jurisdiction (state of Virginia).

Now for the good news: my belief is that as our host says:

“Skeptical analysis is all about shining the light of science into those dark places of dubious claims and ideology that fear the light. Libel suits are often used as a tool to shield against the light of open examination, but we should fight back by using them as opportunities to shine even more light. Fisher better put on her sunglasses.”

By: Karen Haack

Karen Haack — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:01:18 +0000

I know Paul Offit is a lier….He stated in an article that it would be safe to give a child 100,000 vaccines. I personally would be more then willing to give them to him.

By: Linda Rosa

Linda Rosa — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:52:38 +0000

I think Offit has good grounds claiming immunity because Fisher is a public figure. To a large degree, Fisher makes the case herself when in her suit she claims significant losses because of the WIRED article, that she has appeared on numerous TV programs, etc.

By: ausduck

ausduck — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:36:10 +0000

I find it interesting that the body of the complaint yet again has the antivaxxer’s litany of ‘we’re just a poor, independent, voluntary, public funded organisation trying to present the real facts and promote freedom of choice’. This is also the predictable common reply to any criticism of the current prominent antivax (although they are publicly adamant they are not antivax) group here in Australia. Propaganda, that’s all it is. And here in Aus it is propaganda designed to appeal directly to our sense of backing the underdog, the fighter against authority/big business/the guv’ment.
I hope this case backfires against Fisher and her organisation the way that the Singh case has backfired against the BCA. Sometimes one can be too clever.

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:10:08 +0000

John Pieret, who unlike me actually has a law degree, shows that there are prior cases where “liar” and “pathological liar” were identified as expressions of opinion rather than fact–and thus not defamatory.

http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2010/01/some-laws-are-less-asses-than-others.html

The full context of Offit’s statement also makes it appear that “she lies” was specifically about particular false statements about him which he’s in a position to easily show are false.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:38:41 +0000

“All Fisher seems to want (from reading the complaint) is monetary compensation.”

Fisher wants to bully her critics into censoring themselves, but of course she wouldn’t say that in the complaint.

By: Bob Svercl

Bob Svercl — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:31:09 +0000

I have to admit, I’m still feeling biased on the side of Wired magazine for the article. I do wonder what steps Fisher took in order to contact the magazine to try and either have the article pulled or remove the statements made about her (even with a notice/update to the article). What about a formal apology? All Fisher seems to want (from reading the complaint) is monetary compensation.

On the other hand, is this a situation where someone trying to be skeptical slipped up in their medium, and we should let the court case go? I agree with Steven that the attention brought to the NVIC should be used in our favor to show the nation (most likely) their factual shortcomings and hopefully educate more people.