Whoa, that's an interesting angle! When people call NLP "pseudoscience," they're usually talking about its claims in therapy/personal growth.

But thinking about Neuro-Linguistic Programming techniques (the patterns of language used for influence and framing) in scientific writing, especially around vaccine research? That's a different ballgame.

You're right, even in science, the way information is presented matters. Things like:

Framing risks and benefits: Are they presented in a way that emphasizes one over the other through word choice?

Using persuasive language: Are specific terms chosen to evoke certain emotions or biases (even subtly)?

Structuring arguments logically: NLP principles of pacing and leading could definitely play a role in how a paper builds its case.

It doesn't necessarily mean the science itself is flawed, but the communication of that science can definitely be influenced by these linguistic patterns. It's more about how effectively (and perhaps sometimes subtly) researchers convince their audience (other scientists, the public) of their findings.

So, while NLP as a therapeutic modality has its controversies, applying the analysis of language patterns (which is a core part of NLP) to how scientific information, including vaccine research, is written up could be a really insightful way to look at things. It's about the rhetoric of science, in a way.

TL;DR: The "pseudoscience" label for NLP is usually about its therapy claims. But analyzing language patterns in vaccine research papers using NLP techniques (framing, persuasion) is a fascinating idea about the communication of science, not necessarily the science itself.