Over the last few days, I’ve been discussing the vaccine from a Catholic perspective. I wrote about respecting life, science, and truth. I addressed concerns about risks to fertility and risks for pregnant and lactating women. All of these posts were to lay a foundation for discussing the LifeSiteNews (LSN) article that started all of this.
I don’t want to link to the LSN article because it is not right to drive more traffic to something so full of misinformation and (seems to be) meant to cause panic. If you want to look at it, the article is “Pfizer COVID jab warning: No breastfeeding, avoid pregnancy for 2 months, unknown fertility impacts” by Dorothy Cummings McLean (December 4, 2020).
In this blog post, I want to address different facets of the article and how we should process them as faithful, truth-loving Catholics.
Fertility, Pregnancy, and Lactation
In a section called “Fertility, pregnancy and lactation,” the guide says there is “no or limited data” on the vaccine.
This shouldn’t surprise us. In fact, if they already had enough data to make a statement one way or another, we should be concerned. That would mean the developers of the vaccine had been unethically testing on pregnant women before it was safe to do so.
The warnings put out by Pfizer should remind us that they are doing their due diligence. These warnings are normal for developments of new medications and treatments.
In fact, even my prenatal vitamins – the supplements help support a healthy pregnancy and help mother and nursing child during breastfeeding – contain the warning to talk to a medical professional first.
Therefore, it is not recommending its use for pregnant women.
When we look at the linked document “Reg 174 Information for UK Healthcare Professionals”, it actually says “Administration of
the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.”
Perhaps they updated the document since McClean wrote the article. Though she claims “the instructions state that “a risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded.” Therefore, the guide specifies that the vaccine “should not be used during breast-feeding.”” The guide does not state either of those things.
I think that they updated the guide rather than McClean making up quotes. I still want to point out the differences between the LSN article and what the guide actually says.
But alarmingly the guide has only one thing to say about the vaccine’s impact on fertility: they don’t know if it does or doesn’t.
Again, this should not surprise us. It is too early in the development to know the impact. This should not be a cause for alarm, but it is a reminder that we should be prudent.
Missing Information
McClean does not address the results of the animal studies which are clearly stated in the guide. Namely that “There were no vaccine-related effects on female fertility, pregnancy, or embryo-foetal or offspring development.”
I know my experiences differ, but when I was working as an engineer, I would review any information related to reproductive toxicity, even if all that was available were animal studies. This information helped me make informed decisions about whether or not I felt safe using a chemical.
I’m curious why she left out this information. While it isn’t human data, animal data is still valuable information. But, I will repeat that perhaps it is just my perception that this information is valuable.
Fertility Fears
McClean then mentions concerns raised by Dr. Michael Yeadon and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg.
Among other concerns, Yeadon and Wodart warn that some of the vaccines may prevent the safe development of placentas in pregnant women, resulting in “vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.”
While I wish that we could trust all doctors, the reality is that some share misinformation. At the bare minimum, we should look to see if their opinions have evidence to back them. Though them having certain credentials and experience helps their case, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are sharing the truth.
Both these “leading doctors” have been called out by their peers for spreading misinformation.
There have also been a number of fact checks on their letter:
It’s concerning to me that an article claiming to be news only looks at information from two doctors rather than the multitudes of other organizations that addressed this, but perhaps that information was not yet available.
Can’t Sue
I won’t be going into the legal concerns about damages from the vaccine and these blanket clauses. That is outside my scope of understanding.
I do want to direct anyone who shares her concerns about the bid request to this fact-check from Reuters.
CRAP Test
As I mentioned in my post on Catholics seeking truth, one way to evaluate sources is by using the CRAP Test. Let’s keep in mind that this is classified as a news piece. We should hold it to higher standards than an opinion piece, but perhaps we can give it a little more leniency than an academic or research article.
Currency
If we’re solely focusing on currency, I’d say that the piece is still somewhat from an appropriate time. However, we would need to also take into consideration the new information available. Information about coronavirus is particularly susceptible to changing rapidly.
Reliability
McClean does link to her sources (although there is a question about the quotes from one source), and her grammar and spelling do not make me instantly discredit anything she writes.
Where the reliability becomes dicey is the question “Can you verify the information from other sources?” As you can see in my posts on fertility fears and pregnancy and lactation, there are a number of sources that are posting information that provides important clarification to the information McClean provides or calls her information into question.
Authority
Dorothy Cumming McClean is a journalist and author. According to her bio on LSN, she has both an M.A. in English Literature and an M.Div./S.T.B. from Regis College. That doesn’t raise any red flags to me.
What does is the website on which this article was posted.
There’s no denying that LSN has a right-wing bias. This isn’t inherently a good thing or a bad thing, but it’s important to keep that in mind as we’re reviewing the information the source shares. In general, websites that review the bias and reliability of different sources find LSN has mixed accuracy in their reporting (1, 2).
Though LSN has a dedicated Catholic section, they are not members of the Catholic Press Association because they don’t meet the journalistic standards of the Catholic Press Association.
So knowing that LSN doesn’t meet certain journalistic standards, has mixed reputability on its reporting, and is strongly biased means that we should read anything they post critically. This doesn’t mean we should immediately disregard anything they produce, but we should look for other sources to confirm (or challenge) the information we see on LSN.
Purpose/Point of View
Because this article is in the news section of the LSN website, we can assume that the primary intent is to inform. However, word choices like “jab” and “alarmingly” also make it seem like there is some desire to persuade the readers.
There are not advertising links in the article except asking for subscriptions and donations. I believe it is totally reasonable for them to ask for those things (even though I disagree with some of their content).
I also think earning advertising revenue is appropriate. Because they are a non-profit, you can find their 990 Form online to see what they report for revenue, including advertisement revenue. My quick scan through these makes it seem like the bulk of their revenue comes from public support. I personally didn’t see any red flags, but you’re welcome to look through them in more detail.
However, like any other media provider, they want views. This article is very clearly oriented towards their readers’ stances and interests. Again, addressing your readers’ interests is part of the point, but this shouldn’t be done at the sacrifice of truth.
The following are just my observations, but it seems that, in general, conservatives:
- are more vocal about their opposition to vaccines/are more likely to be vaccine-hesitant.
- do not consider COVID-19 as big of a public health concern as liberals do.
- are more likely to be concerned about topics related to fertility.
What LSN published is an article about a vaccine for a disease its reader might not believe is as severe as it actually is. If they are vaccine-hesitant, this would only be amplified by reading that this vaccine could negatively impact their fertility. Add in that this is one of the few sources “reporting” on this, and it’s understandable why readers would latch onto this and share it widely.
To Summarize
This article uses a lack of data to create uncertainty (and a little fear). The quotes cannot be found in the cited document, unreliable sources are quoted, and much of the information in the article requires additional context, cannot be verified by other sources, or is disproven by other sources.
But lets assume the best of the author and LSN.
Let’s assume that the cited document was edited since the article was published.
Let’s assume that all the resources explaining why it’s extremely unlikely that this vaccine would impact fertility were not yet available.
Let’s assume the author missed earlier criticisms of Dr. Yeadon and Dr. Wodarg and that critiques of their letters were not yet available.
At best, this article is outdated and in major need of correction.
At worst, it is a manipulative article meant to misinform and frighten readers.
Whatever the intent, this article should not be trusted, and people should be hesitant to trust other LifeSiteNews articles about the COVID-19 vaccines.
