Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Breeding Harmful Scientific Misinformation
Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "University of Toronto researchers have uncovered widespread misinformation in videos on YouTube related to vaccination and immunization. In the first-ever study of its kind, they found that over half of the 153 videos analyzed portrayed childhood, HPV, flu and other vaccinations negatively or ambiguously. They also found that videos highly skeptical of vaccinations received more views and better ratings by users than those videos that portray immunizations in a positive light. According to the lead researcher, 'YouTube is increasingly a resource people consult for health information, including vaccination. Our study shows that a significant amount of immunization content on YouTube contradicts the best scientific evidence at large. From a public health perspective, this is very concerning.' An extract from the Journal of the American Medical Association is available online."
Seriously, if you're going to NOT get vaccinated for something as a result of having watched a YouTube video, then it's probably better for humanity if you increase your risk of being removed from the gene pool.
To quote bash.org:
" The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"
Okay, I'm feeding the trolls. I know I'm not supposed to, but I wish I had mod points instead.
"We have to remember there is a large sub-culture in the US/Canada and Europe who still think that evolution is a myth, and the world was created 6,000 years ago."
What the HELL does this have to do with Vaccinations? I know plenty of Atheist who don't like vaccinations either, because they don't trust the science that is performed for profit. This has NOTHING to do with Evolution or Bible believers, but is a snide comment. Hope you're happy in your smugness.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You are part of the problem here. They shouldn't use mercury, agreed. But the link to autism has been shot down. The "study" that pushed that theory was a piece of crap and has been debunked. But it's still fun for people to believe because, hey, mercury is bad for you so it must be true when someone comes up with a plausible-sounding symptom of mercury-bearing vaccinations.
Keep it up. The world needs as much clueless misinformation as it can get. (Sarcasm.)
Science is perfectly open minded about the possibility that evolution is wrong. All you have to do is provide evidence that all of the evidence we currently have is either wrong, or being completely misinterpreted. So far that hasn't happened, but if it does, the theory will change.
I'm not going to pick apart your whole "historical science" vs "operational science" thing, other than to point out that it seems to mostly be used as a distinction on religious/creationist websites. Answersingenesis.com is not an authoritative source for science. There is plenty of actual, biological science supporting Evolution, and none supporting Creationism.
No, they're not. SCIENTISTS are looking at the evidence, and basing their conclusions on that evidence. Creationists have a conclusion, and try to make the evidence fit that conclusion. This is not how scientific inquiry works.
Ah, macro-evolution vs micro-evolution, nifty. Except that they're the same thing. Lots of changes piled up over a breathtakingly long time. Since this is a Slashdot post and not a biology textbook, I'm not going to get into every detail. The information isn't kept secret, look it up. I suggest you try some sources based in science rather than religion for the actual details though. Even if you don't believe the theory is correct, using sites like the ones you seem to be using, which contain a lot of misinformation on what evolution is, will not help you construct a very solid argument. Unless you're just talking to other Creationists that is.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
What's it like arguing from such monstrous ignorance?
If you had any background in the debate, you'd know fundamentalist Christians represent a large part of the movement against vaccines, some going so far as to believe vaccines cut you off from God.
In fact, it's the very people he is referencing whom you claim have nothing to do with vaccinations that have recently been some of the biggest opponents of general vaccinations for a variety of reasons.
So, once again, before calling troll because someone said something you don't like, consider educating yourself on matters.
There's a lot of research that suggests that it's actually our ultra-sterile environments that are causing all the allergies. Immune systems designed to fight off parasites and bacteria are instead turning on our own bodies.
For example, some folks are deliberately infesting their bodies with relatively benign intestinal parasites as a way to gain relief from allergies, and it's effective. The histamines that attack our sinuses are intended to attack parasites. Give them a parasite to attack and the nasal allergy symptoms go away.
Slate had a great article about the topic entitled: "Why Americans should ingest more excrement." at http://www.slate.com/id/2175569/pagenum/all/
Vaccines are being scapegoated despite a lack of evidence. Remember that correlation does not equal causation. The evidence points to the lack of kids making mud pies and playing outdoors as a more likely cause than vaccines.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Of course they are against it - since almost 100% of the kids in the US are vaccinated, their precious darlings have little chance of catching one of those diseases. They are relying on everyone else to protect them.
Now, take away the requirement. For a few years there's no effect, but as the percentage of unvaccinated kids increases, outbreaks start up. And now the kids that did get vaccines are at risk, because they are not perfect, and can be overridden by enough exposure.
So now my kid gets sick because some parent decides they are somehow different than the rest of us. I'll go along with it, as long as the rest of the libertarian ideal is met as well, and I get to extract my own justice.
Some things only work if everyone does them, and vaccination is one of them.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
As for the chills and fever, the flu vaccine isn't a live virus vaccine. No infectious agents involved.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
While I can't disagree completely, it seems that some authority figures are using YouTube to get their message out. The California Department of Motor Vehicles has its own YouTube channel with over 17k subscribers. I don't know how many subscribers you need on YouTube to be popular, but 17k seems like a lot.
I guess the New York Times wrote an article about the whole thing. You can check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/us/22dmv.html
"Preceded by itself yields falsehood" preceded by itself yields falsehood.
Vaccines have saved more lives than any other medical discovery in human history. They have virtually eliminated the threat of polio, smallpox, mumps and measles. And what exactly would pharmaceutical companies have to gain from poisoning the population? There's no drug to treat autism and there are alternatives to mercury preserved (more expensive but if they were used the extra cost would just be passed on to the consumer).
If you really think all drug companies are evil you should atleast read up on River Blindness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverblindness This is a horrible parasite that once infected millions of people in affrica. Merck accidentally found a treatment for it, spent millions of dollars to get it certified and offered to sell it below cost to African governments. When the governments still couldn't afford it, Merck offered it for free, even going so far as to build infrustructure to make its administration possible.
I know it's only one example, and yes, they did get good PR for it, but to say that drug companies are all evil all the time is just plain ridiculous.
That's a nice idea, but unfortunately contradicted by reality. We are the subjects of a plutocracy, our government is wholly owned by corporations, and the constitution gets little more than lip service these days.
I agree, it should be the way you say, but it's not.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Flu vaccines are created by examining what flu strains are present in bird populations (usually in South-East Asia), figuring out which strain is most likely to jump to humans that year, and injecting other birds with the virus and using the antibodies as the vaccine. That's why you shouldn't get a flu vaccination if you have egg allergies. It's also why they're able to vaccinate for flu strains before the flu strain is present in the general population and why flu vaccinations work in the first place.
Coincidentally, yes, all strains of flu are technically an "avian bird flu", which is redundant on so many levels, though influenza will also sometimes make the jump from human to pig and back again. Fun virus, that one.
Do you really think the JAMA or NEJM is the appropriate resource for medical information for your average consumer? They're not. What is in there isn't written for that audience, nor should it be.
I think this is a non-story. There are people who are suspicious of to downright hostile towards immunizations. Those people are probably not that bright. So where do people who are not that bright and wouldn't be taken seriously by any mainstream media go to air their 'information'? YouTube. Where do people who share their opinions go to get video of the opinions they want? YouTube.
There's a reason the videos with poor information are rated higher. And it's simple. It's because only the idiots who believe it are watching videos about immunization on YouTube and rating them. People who are not idiots are not watching these videos at all.
There have always been dumb people. The only difference between the 'old days' and now is we've made communicating easy enough that even dumb people can do it, so you're now more likely to run into a dumb opinion or bad information. But smart people can continue to do the same things they've always done: Ignore it.
paintball
but please excuse me for being a bit skeptical of what the government thinks about medical advice... Does anyone honestly believe that politicians know what is best for our health? Or that they care one whit about what is in our best interest?
"The government" is not just politicians. In fact it is mostly not politicians, fortunately. It is made of career scientists, engineers, and medical doctors among others. Many of them know more about vaccines and studies involving vaccines than anyone else in the world (I personally know some of them). JAMA does not publish articles by pure politicians in general.
It becomes everyone's problem *IF* these idiots' non-vaccinated children are allowed into public schools, or anywhere else that sane individuals and their offspring might congregate. The goddamned woo-woos who think vaccinations and fluoridated water are the tools of some Bilderberg conspiracy don't seem to understand what the PUBLIC in "public health" means. Would be nice if we had a secluded woo-woo colony where they could be sent to live out their ignorant, diseased lives as they see fit.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
You're a liar. That never appears anywhere in your link, except as speculation by a group of parents.
Why does it not surprise me that you'd openly lie?
Not all concerns on vaccinations are invalid. We have to be careful not to fall prey to making "science & progress" a religion and deifying it.
1. Vaccines are a great thing and have saved millions of lives.
2. They have a great track record but not a perfect one. Overall they are well worth it for society.
3. Just because a study shows no signs of claimed issues does NOT mean such claims are invalid. Anyone having worked in a production environment is aware that some production batches are sub-par. QA is designed to catch most of these. But anyone that has bought a defective product knows it's never perfect. So a study merely shows that a good batch does not have harmful effects. It is very difficult for a "scientific study" to take into account the effects of those who have received vaccinations from sub-par batches of production.
4. Many claims of concern are circumspect, baseless and without merit. While others are more indeterminate. A few throughout history have after much criticism, denial, etc been shown to in fact pose risk.
5. Another valid concern is the tendency to apply too many vaccinations concurrently to a young child who's immune system is still in development. What affect does receiving three or even five or more vaccinations in a short period have on a very young child? Furthermore, the assumption all children will respond the same is not valid. And to some parents too great a risk. (ie: there has been evidence that some children have more difficulty metabolising certain agents than others - likewise, some may have more difficulty handling numerous strong immune responses simultaneously). Simply spreading out the vaccinations a bit might a wise thing to do.
But it can be far too easy to merely criticize such parents concerns on the basis of the dogmatic belief in science. Decrying them as heretics in what should be science and not a religion.
I'm sorry for your family heartache.
I recognize Wikipedia is not definitive, but everything linked below has references, so it allows these to be tied up with a bow quite nicely.
However, correlation is not causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_causation. Assuming you're from the US or Europe, Thimerosal is not used in vaccines except for influenza (which isn't required) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thimerosal. In addition, the CDC, FDA, and WHO categorically reject any relationship between Thimerosal and autism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy. The CDC, Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences,and the UK National Health Service have determined no link between MMR and autism.
The risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh even the real risks of the vaccine. Multiple-vaccine shots don't "overstimulate" the immune system. Not vaccinating your children can expose populations to previously squelched or heartier strains of disease. http://www.healthcentral.com/ency/408/002024.html
http://www.boystownpediatrics.org/HealthTips/immunization.asp
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/12/1573 (warning, login needed)
True, autism rates have been rising over the years. However, it's unclear how much of this is really "new" or incremental, and how much is due to attention paid to it and more advanced diagnosis mechanisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
. There are many, less nefarious but more plausible explanations. The vaccine hysteria is simply not supported by any real evidence. To be honest, most mothers of autistic children also probably ate carrots during pregnancy or (more recently) used their wireless phones. That doesn't mean either caused the autism. I realize your family tragedies are tied closely with significant, stand-out events. Augment this with pseudo-scientific fear-mongering about vaccines, and I can see why you might feel this way. However, thoughts and beliefs simply don't equal fact - no matter what you (or anyone), well, believes.
This doesn't mean you're an "indoctrinated idiot" - by your own admission, you're fairly biased based upon personal experience. I might be afraid to get back on a roller-coaster if I survived a horrible accident (or lost a close family member in one). However, I (would like to think that I) would not go so far as to suggest that my personal experience and bias ought to be construed as factual, even if it were in line with a bunch of people who were for the closing of amusement parks and dismantling of all roller-coasters.
raises a larger question