Skip to main content

I’ve had a discussion with a lobbying page on Facebook who did not want to have my criticism of Regret on their comments.

I’ve posted their original comment to me and my response here for those that want to reference it.

My responses

I think the argument of ignoring needs a finer point to be useful. If you’re seeking to engage science then you need to offer the variables. 
As it stands the best that can be said is there are a number of conditions being attributed to the vaccination (POTS, CFS, PM, MS etc.) and when it has been investigated the occurrences are no more voluminous than if there was not a vaccine at all.

This is a point that gets lost in the emotional rhetoric. If you require a scientific engagement then there’s need to present a scientific thesis – the language and the data need to match the medium.

In the case of Regret their communications are appalling. There are outlandish claims and a tendency to cite disreputable anecdotes. It’s a PR nightmare. 

The key word in organisation is organised – there’s no structure just a cacophony of dissenting voices. The extent of media relations from the one self-identifying “organisation” has been supply dodgy facts, get called on it, go quiet. 

Hardly behaviour that engenders trust. 

Personally, I’ve been engaged in debate on this online for some time. I started out with an open mind but when statements are challenged the arguments are left wanting for verification. 

SImilarly I’ve noticed a curious pattern of avoiding discussion on key points by introducing side arguments and avoiding direct engagement on countering arguments. 

This is all poor work. 

If there’s anything in this then instead of organising on this ghastly named page you need to get strategic and professional. The price of that might be you’ll need to accept the possibility of just being wrong but it would mean that you’d be doing your agenda a better service. 

I recommend:

1. Hire a PR agency – a good PR agency would have advised against someone as incapable as Anna Cannon acting as a spokesperson. 

They would also have helped construct the argument so it is clear and the debate has form. Right now you’re relying on nothing but sophistry, poor data, discredited quacks and too many independent spokespeople that have too many ulterior agendas. 

2. Hire a scientist – not a naturopath. If there’s an issue then research needs to be commissioned. It might not say what you like but if there’s something in your argument at least it would have some validity.


 To your more churlish points:

“Btw, aren’t you in the wedding band industry? Why are you over here trying to debate parents on science? They don’t have it. And we’ve explained why. Parents see their daughters reacting, their friends daughters reacting, people all over the world, same thing.”

I’m lucky enough to have a highly Googleable name so that’s one hat I’ve worn but I’m sure you’ll have also found that I work in communications and am a parent. I have a degree in Philosophy and my specialisations where in the philosophy of science and rights theory. 

None of that is particularly relevant. I don’t rest on any authority that I have or purport to have. The arguments I use don’t require it as their authority comes from sound methodology, data and review. 

I don’t hide behind a pseudonym. I’ve every courage in speaking out on things I believe in my own name. 

“It’s not a mystery – except to all the trolls, mostly men, or people too old to get the vaccine – but could if they wished. Why don’t you get the vaccine, you know, in case you develop penis cancer?”

I’m not sure what you’re point is here. I haven’t seen too many trolls in my travels on this debate spare some clearly fake accounts of dubious provenance. I do hope that you’re not simply calling everyone that disagrees with you a troll. That would be pretty pathetic. 

I also hope that you’re not making a point on my gender. I’ve had this thrown at me a few times. I’m a son of a mother, a partner, a friend and crucially a father to a daughter. Men are stakeholders here beyond penile cancer. 

Accordingly, unless you can produce a case that compels me I’ll ensure that you do not get a free card to own this debate. If you make points in public that warrant engagement then you will be engaged on the topic. That is how a it goes in a democracy.

Thomas Brunkard

Author Thomas Brunkard

More posts by Thomas Brunkard

Leave a Reply