Immunisation Awareness Society followers – what the new page rules show

By Grant Jacobs 14/01/2013

On the rare occasions that I have written about vaccine ‘concern’ groups, my interests have been with the accuracy of their claims and how readers who are uncertain about the science can recognise inaccurate claims.

A related element is if the source is trustworthy.

Sometimes this is easier to deal with as you don’t need to grapple with the details of the science, but simply understand the group’s actions and aims.

My aim is to alert readers of the IAS what the ‘page rules’ in the end of the IAS Facebook ‘About’ page are setting out to do and why these rules show the IAS is not worth your trust.[1]

Realistically this article will probably be mostly read by my usual readers, but hopefully a few who have read the IAS page will consider what I have to offer. Don’t feel shy about writing and offering your thoughts. (Politely, of course!)

The thoughts offered below equally apply to other forums.

How trustworthy is a group that has prevented discussion, deleted comments pointing out their errors and didn’t correct their errors after having the errors explained to them?

Do you think that offering a discussion forum moderated to ensure the discussion is slanted to the group’s views by blocking discussion of differing evidence or views or pointing out errors aids developing an informed choice, in a trustworthy way?

This is how the New Zealand lobby group the Immunisation Awareness Society aim to run their Facebook page, stated in their own words.

Why the IAS got feedback in the first place

The reason the IAS have been getting sometimes firmly-worded feedback in recent months is because of the IAS’ decision to push their material into others’ Facebook pages through the Facebook sponsored post advertising scheme – some who found these advertisements pushed to their pages choose to express their feelings.

Fair game, right? – consumers should be able complain about advertising they don’t like. The IAS can’t complain about that: it was the IAS’ actions that drew the feedback.

If the IAS doesn’t like this feedback, surely the solution is simple: stop promoting IAS posts on others’ Facebook pages.

The IAS objects to ‘pro-vaccine’ views being presented on their page, for example: ‘We will not allow the pro-vaccine group to dominate the discussion.

People wrote objecting to having views they strongly disagree with being pushed, unasked, into their Facebook pages by the IAS.

Do you agree that the IAS cannot have this both ways, that doing that would be asking for a double standard, and that this has nothing to do with trolling. It has to do with IAS’ decision to advertise it’s posts by pushing them into other’s pages.

Many businesses (and organisations) have recognised Facebook’s new sponsored post scheme as needing care: I’ve tried to briefly outline one reason why in Footnote 2, that people understandably object to having material they don’t like on what they consider ‘their’ space, unasked for.

(As an aside, was the IAS Facebook advertising effort was done with the consent of members?: I presume it is using their money.)

Trolling or not

The IAS Facebook page is pitching an article by anonymous member of IAS on trolls and trolling.

That article leaves out that, with a few exceptions, the comments to the IAS page were not trolling, that people were blocked regardless of if they were trolling or not.

The IAS shut down complaints about the IAS’ advertising and fair (and mostly often polite) corrections of inaccuracies in the IAS articles.

A number of writers were clearly expressing objections to the IAS pushing their material onto the reader’s Facebook page.

Some offered straight-forward, polite, information pointing out the inaccuracies in the IAS articles, such as these two examples:

Most of the these comments are no longer present because the IAS blocked these people. When users are blocked from a Facebook page, all their comments disappear. Should you trust a group that removes polite, informative comments like these?

A few writers, later, wrote more in line with what might be considered trolling – but the IAS deleted all the non-trolling comments too.

As I explained to IAS over a week ago (see comments), “Trolling is usually baiting to try create arguments. Presenting information is not trolling.” Similarly, expressing objections to pushing materials on others’ sites is not trolling.

The IAS has not been “bucking the trolls off the bridge by taking a zero tolerance stance to them” — it has been kicking off any- and everyone.

How much trust can you place in a group that says one thing, but leaves out what they were actually doing?

The IAS say they want to ensure discussion cannot take place

The IAS has set up ‘page rules[3] (their term) for their Facebook page that aim to shut down discussion and ensure they have the ‘last word’:

We will not allow the pro-vaccine group to dominate the discussion. Individuals who want to express a positive opinion about vaccination are limited to one post per thread. People who violate this rule will be banned.

By insisting people whose views they don’t agree with can only have one comment the IAS are ensuring no discussion can take place. No conversation or dialogue can take place if people are limited to one comment.

The IAS are also ensuring that they ‘have the last word’, that they can put up replies that the person cannot reply to. That‘s quite hypocritical, don’t you think?

How trustworthy is a group that sets rules to ensure they have the last word?

How trustworthy is a group that sets up a discussion forum in such as way that they can overrule any evidence contrary to their own, no matter how good that evidence might be? (The IAS has already, many times, deleted politely written information pointing out errors in their claims?)

Confusion over what ‘informed choice’ means

I’m under the impression IAS organisers are confusing difference meanings of ‘informed choice’ and are conflating one with the other.

There is wanting to present their opinion.

There is, differently, offering to present information to aid others in coming to an informed decision.

Both fair enough in themselves, but:

The former presents a point of view.

The latter requires that all ‘sides’ be presented equally and neutrally.

How trustworthy is a group that confuses these two?

Using a heavy hand to ensure discussion takes a particular path is contrary to assisting others in coming to an informed decision. Heavy-handed moderation does not facilitate ‘an informed decision making process’: it discourages honest and open examination of what they present.

How trustworthy is that?

Restricting access to New Zealand

As a brief aside about one thing that as far as I know IAS have not announced, at least to their Facebook page. I have been told the IAS have placed their Facebook page on a ‘regional block’ and that this means users outside of New Zealand cannot see their page.

Did the IAS inform their followers of this change? (Or ask them if it were what they wanted?)

Final thoughts

I would encourage readers (and followers) of IAS to think what this comment policy says about the trustworthiness of the group.

Shutting down and controlling discussion in the way the IAS page rules want shows an unwillingness to actually consider material, to be open to reading where they might have erred and learn from it, an unwillingness to let their readers have an informed decision making process. (As an example, how trustworthy is a group who, having had easy-to-understand errors pointed out to them, delete the comments politely explaining the error and do not correct their errors?[4])

I don’t care much either way about the IAS commenting policy myself. I am not able to comment there after all, so it makes no practical difference to me.[5] (I can assure you I have not trolled there.) If you like, I don’t have a dog in this fight.

I would like to think you will want the places you get information from to be trustworthy and that thinking about that is worth a little time.

Feel free to talk about it in the comments.

(First-time comments need manual approval before they appear. This will usually take me at most a few hours; my apologies in advance if I’m slow getting to your comment. The blog is set up this way to prevent spam. Racy advertising from dubious sources, that sort of thing. If you want my comment policy, it’s at the end of my About page.)


Update: I’ve added two examples of polite, informative comments that the IAS removed.

Michael Edmonds wrote recently here on The Hypocrisy of the Immunisation “Awareness” Society. Some of the comments there might illustrate some of the issues with the IAS comment moderation.

Now I’ve got this out of the way, hopefully I can move on to genomics, molecular biology and that sort of thing…!


My aim here is not to shut down or ‘silence’ the IAS. However much I consider their views to be poorly informed, they’re entitled to talk ‘whatever’ amongst themselves. Free speech and all that.

Having said that, I see nothing much wrong with tackling views presented in public, and reasons for those views. If you express things in public you have to accept any criticism that comes of it.

I’m less keen on being harsh to IAS readers or followers, who mostly are just being taking what is presented without appreciating how misleading it might be. Better, I think, to help these people see what is right.

I could object to false claims in advertising material, but that’s a story for another day (if ever).


Facebook presents posts as ‘status report’ along a timeline.

Late last year the IAS started paid advertisements of their posts. One of their members would write a piece on their website. Their Facebook page would highlight it in a status report. That status report would then be pushed into others’ timeline through Facebook’s sponsored post advertising scheme.

Despite this, I don’t think this is the key reason they attracted negative feedback.

My reading of it is that Facebook readers felt outraged that the were receiving pseudoscientific, poor, and I think many would say dangerous, ‘medical advice’ on their Facebook timelines unasked for.

There have been quite a number of negative views expressed about Facebook’s sponsored post scheme, some suggesting it is poorly thought-out.

One aspect is that users of computer software prefer to be in control, particularly over what they consider ‘theirs’.

Facebook users have widely criticised Facebook’s sponsored post scheme, pointing out in particular while they they might tolerate advertising in the sidebar (common in many on-line sites), pushing material into their timeline is pushing it into space they consider they own.

Many business and organisations will recognise this as a scenario to be treated with care. I, for one, will not be advertising my computational biology business this way.

As an aside, I don’t think it helps matters that, to my reading, the IAS missives push, if not are straight-forwardly in breach of, both the Facebook and the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority guidelines, but let’s put that aside (for now at least). The immediate point here is just that if you advertise, people will object if they dislike the advertising.


Here are the full IAS ‘page rules’ at the time of writing:

Page Rules:

The IAS welcomes and encourages a variety of points of view on our page. Our main objective is to promote and encourage people to make informed decisions about vaccination. People who vaccinate are welcome to comment; however, we will not permit anyone to advocate for any form of forced vaccination. Speaking in favor of school mandates, employment mandates, even advocating shunning of those who refuse vaccines are unacceptable behaviors.

We will not allow the pro-vaccine group to dominate the discussion. Individuals who want to express a positive opinion about vaccination are limited to one post per thread. People who violate this rule will be banned.

Trolls with or without one or multiple fake profile(s) commenting for the sake of harassment will be banned.

We also ask that all participants practice a reasonable level of courtesy. This includes focusing on the topic, not the individual, and refraining from name-calling and other unpleasantness. For ease of conversation, avoid excessive use of caps.

In an ideal world, these rules would not have to be made, but due to continued abuse on our page, we have had to resort to this.

Thank you for your understanding.

– Team IAS


I could relate a clear example from the press release the IAS paid Facebook to promote late last year, but this post is pushing 2000 words already! (Yes, I know Orac writes 4000+ words. I have in the past too. Heck I even have a 4000+ word reply to former IAS spokesperson Michelle Rudgley that I haven’t even published!)


Having said that, currently a good number of people are blocked for reasons outside of the ‘page rules’ they have laid down. Perhaps it’d be wise of the IAS to start over and allow everyone to write under a level playing field.

Other articles on Code for life:

A vaccine discussion forum (open to all, run by people within New Zealand with expertise in immunology)

Sources for medical information for non-medics and non-scientists (a resource page)

Fact or fallacy, a survey of immunisation statements in the print media (the media unfortunately get things wrong, which can be confusing if you’re new to the topic)

The Panic Virus (a review of a book examining parents’ concerns about vaccines)

Thoughts on, and for, those trying to choose to vaccinate or not (Some thoughts on some aspects of parent trying to find sound information. Just as my article asks how trustworthy is the IAS, the research described in this article asks how trustworthy are articles in the media.)

Immunisation then and now (a peek a history)

Rubella, not a benign disease if experienced during early pregnancy (including rubella in New Zealand)

0 Responses to “Immunisation Awareness Society followers – what the new page rules show”

  • I was banned from the IAS facebook page. It showed in my newsfeed as a sponsored post. I was concerned, to say the least, to see the misinformation sponsored as medical advice.

    When I politely corrected this incorrect information, IAS admins never answered a single question, but only fobbed me off with this is our “opinion” or “feeling”. When it comes to making medical decisions, people deserve evidence.

    I was then banned from the page and my posts were deleted. I am now even more concerned that others who view the site may not appreciate the extent of bias shown. In concert with the heavy censorship applied, this is hard to discern. Undermining the science behind vaccination, while deliberately obscuring rational debate is in my view, very far from trustworthy and this must be made clear to people looking for vaccine information.

  • Here’s an examples of one of my comments (that was removed) to IAS:

    “The most common adjuvants in the current childhood vaccines Infanrix®-hexa, Infanrix®-IPV, Prevenar®, Boostrix®, and Gardasil are aluminium salts. Aluminium is one of the most common elements on earth and a natural part of the environment and our bodies. The levels in vaccines are very low in comparison to the intake from food and other environmental factors, including breast milk.

    Fernandez-Lorenzo JR, Cocho JA, Rey-Goldar ML, Couce M, Fraga JM. Aluminum contents of human milk, cow’s milk, and infant formulas. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition. 1999;28(3):270-5.”

  • “Individuals who want to express a positive opinion about vaccination are limited to one post per thread.”

    This seems to me to encourage long cut-and-paste posts to try and counter every objection before it’s raised. These long posts could then be deleted by IAS as “harassment”. Effectively ensuring that discussion is either almost completely one sided or non-existent.

    [ediiting note: “The IAS say they want to ensure cannot discussion cannot take place”, might want to re-phrase that]

  • “ah, Muphry’s Law strikes again :)”

    Sorry, I don’t follow. Are you referring to your final sentence? (My reference to discussion is in the sense of the back-and-forth that takes place between two people; that can’t happen if one party is limited to a single opportunity to write.)

  • Yes, I refer to the spelling mistake in my note about your editing.
    I assumed the meaning you intended but the sentence as stated makes no sense.

  • I’ve updated the sentence now – thanks for pointing it out.

    Excuse the confusion: something to do with having started early today [before 7am] and no coffee yet, perhaps?! 🙂

  • Team IAS –

    I would encourage you to write openly.

    Bloggers regularly openly ask for ideas. I’ve done it myself on occasion. You get a far better selection of ideas that way: one person’s views and approaches will be limited and likely suited to their particular material and aims.

    More on this later when I have time.

  • I would agree with Grant.

    IAS, you invited discussion by paying for your opinions to be displayed in my newsfeed. Once I responded to that, you blocked me and a significant number of others.

    It’s quite clear that people don’t appreciate being banned from discussions you initiated and don’t find it acceptable to simply leave it at your one-way flow of misleading claims.

    Why not encourage discussion and debate with your readers? If you feel that what you have to say will withstand discussion, then there is no obvious need to hide alternative views.

    Claiming that you promote an informed choice while at the same time stating that you will ban people from discussing this choice unless they agree with you seems to only undermine your cause.

    Perhaps your goals could be more clearly stated to be that you disseminate anti-vaccination information, rather than that you support people, so long as their views do not oppose yours and they do not engage in debate.

  • Just a quick clarification — my fault for not being clear:

    By ‘write openly’ I meant that I think it’s better for all (i.e. including the IAS*) that the longish email sent to me by the IAS be presented openly. Others will have suggestions, hence what I wrote above.

    It would be better for me to present this within a fresh blog post and invite suggestions there: this discussion was really intended for any readers / followers of the IAS who want to consider what the rules suggest about the group, rather than for the organisers.

    I doubt I will get time to take this further tonight (or, if I do it will likely be not until very late). I’ve only skimmed the email thus far.

    * In the long run, at least.

  • Another IAS sponsored post has appeared in my newsfeed. This time extolling the book “Melanie’s marvellous measles”.

    Of course I can’t comment on their page about it as I am banned, but it is extremely upsetting to see measles trivialised in this way. I sincerely hope no-one is unduly influenced by this extreme misleading view.

  • ‘Team IAS’,

    You sent an email to me ‘to respond to your [my] latest blog’.

    The usual forum for that is these comments.

    In your letter, you offer explanations for your actions and ask me that ‘any suggestions as to other remedies to the situation we may have overlooked are of course welcome’.

    Two parts, then. Your explanations for your actions and you asking for suggestions.

    To the first: Your explanations really would be better directed to everyone not just me. I’m only one person in this, after all.

    To the second: If you want suggestions from me this should done through this forum, please. It’s what this comments section is for.

    My response was in public, open for anyone to reply. (IAS followers are welcome to comment here, for example.) I strongly prefer any discussion to remain open.

    Finally: You write that you do not want to write in public because you ‘aren’t wanting to bring the conflict to other sites and other people and to continue adding fuel to the proverbial fire’.

    While I can’t speak for other groups, I feel confident in saying that if anything will be ‘adding fuel to the proverbial fire’, it will be on what you do (or not) on Facebook. (i.e. not here.) If anything, writing openly might help ease things.

  • Team IAS –

    Just a heads-up: I may put your email on the blog if I see fit to, particularly owing to the sheer inconsistency between what you wrote by email compared the content of the IAS’ latest post.

  • I would be interested to see that. Given the IAS do not allow comments on their blog and censor their facebook page, it seems rude that they should have any privilege to hide on this forum.

  • If I do write on this (increasingly likely) it’s unlikely to happen before the weekend. I’ve other things to do and other things to write. I’m part-way though a sweeter piece, the sort I like to write but rarely do (Fossicking through drawers). I’ve also some science stuff I’d like to get started on for next week. So we’ll see. IAS stuff is a bit unpleasant to deal with, owing the claims they make and whatnot.

  • From a science communication angle this analogy one commenter (RO, 02:03 PM Friday, 18 Jan 2013) offered to describe herd immunity is interesting:

    ‘Think of it as having a whole lot of crockery you need to move when you move house. You wrap most pieces up in bubble wrap and put them in a box, but for one reason or another a few cannot be wrapped, so you put those pieces in amongst the wrapped ones in the hope they will be protected. But if the unwrapped ones come into contact with each other you will lose the most fragile first.’