I would not argue that the phrase “I’m just asking a question” is a slippery rhetorical device used to inveigle an unsound or offensive opinion into the conversation. Nor would I claim that “I just want to have a debate” is a disingenuous way of forwarding a controversial argument. I’m just asking the question. I’m just running a flag up the pole to see who salutes.
Somebody is always "just asking a question" about immigration, alien visitation or the "truth" behind 9/11. Back in 2009, the good people at South Park satirised the technique in an episode called Dances with Smurfs.
“Because I’m brave enough to ask questions, I come under scrutinies,” the perennially vile Cartman says. “Is Wendy using your lunch money to buy heroin? Probably not, but how can we know? I don’t want my lunch money going to drugs!”
Cartman has made no accusation about Wendy, but somehow or other we've got it in our head that the poor girl is a drug dealer. Followers of James Randi, the assiduous debunker of paranormal baloney, refers to this practice as "JAQing off".
I wonder if George Hook was indulging in some JAQing off last week (now there's an image to savour). I'm not saying he was. I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm just asking the question.
Talking up side effects
In recent months, on his radio show, the former rugger pundit has been talking about alleged side effects of the HPV vaccine. Parents who believe the vaccine, administered to reduce the risk of cervical cancer, has caused their children serious health problems have set up a help group called Regret.
Is Hook now acting as their champion? Is he making a connection between Gardasil, the specific vaccine, and debilitating medical conditions? It’s worth having that debate.
No convincing link has been proven between Gardasil and the symptoms described by the parents. Following his latest airing of the story, Hook, therefore, received some criticism for being unnecessarily alarmist. But he was not to be silenced.
“I refuse to be labelled a scaremonger because I dare ask questions [sic] about the safety of HPV vaccine,” he tweeted on Tuesday. (Because Hook is brave enough to ask questions he comes under scrutinies.)
We should have a debate on whether Hook's programme that day featured some of the most vigorous JAQing off ever heard on Irish radio. Jonathan Hourihane, head of paediatrics and child health at University College Cork, was his superhumanly patient guest.
“Questions are asked and I don’t think they are being asked in Ireland,” Hook said towards the top of the segment.
Hourihane explained: “It is clear to me from my readings . . . that there is no increased incidence of adverse neurological or other side effects in vaccinated people versus the unvaccinated background population.”
The debate then moved on to the question of whether the HSE was providing enough information. Eventually, we ended up in a bizarre tussle over egg allergies. The professor agreed that certain vaccines are incubated in eggs.
“So, therefore, a person who suffers from allergies to eggs – you wouldn’t give them that vaccine. Is that right?” Hook asked.
“You’re completely wrong, George. Those vaccines are safe for people with egg allergies,” the doctor responded, before going on to explain why this was so.
“Prof Hourihane, don’t shoot the messenger because I asked the question,” Hook snapped back.
Message or question
Hang on a moment. Is the presenter delivering a message, or is he merely asking a question (as I am doing here)? I think it’s time to investigate whether George Hook, under the guise of making inquiries, is really suggesting certain vaccines are more dangerous than the authorities allow.
There is a serious issue here. The families behind Regret sincerely believe that Gardasil has made their families sick. Mr Hook is surely equally sincere in feeling that their case is worth making on the air. But this is not just about asking questions.
A case is being made interrogatively for a link between HPV and serious, incapacitating side effects. The scientific evidence suggests no such connection exists. It is thus not unreasonable to suggest that the implicit argument constitutes scaremongering.
Bill Maher, the biting US satirist who is usually an enemy of anti-scientific guff, is another person who just "wants to have a debate" about the dangers of vaccination. Yet Maher has ridiculed 9/11 "truthers" who "ask questions" about whether the Bush administration brought down the Twin Towers. Elsewhere, Donald Trump explains that he was merely seeking the truth when he asked about Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Enough. We need to start a conversation about whether, rather than hiding behind a supposed inquisitiveness, pundits and politicians should just say what they mean. Who knows what conclusions such an enquiry might come to?
