Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Vaccination Conspiracy Theories Thrive on Amazon (cnn.com)
Amid a growing measles outbreak in the United States, the role of powerful tech companies like YouTube and Facebook in spreading vaccine misinformation is under heavy scrutiny. But there is another massive platform offering spurious anti-vaccination content to people seeking information: Amazon, the world's largest online marketplace.
CNN Business: And, asked about it, an Amazon spokesperson only pointed CNN Business to the company's content guidelines page, which says the following: "As a bookseller, we provide our customers with access to a variety of viewpoints, including books that some customers may find objectionable. That said, we reserve the right not to sell certain content, such as pornography or other inappropriate content." A recent search for "vaccine" on Amazon yielded a search page dominated by anti-vaccination content. Of the 18 books and movies listed on the search page, 15 contained anti-vaccination content. The first listing was a sponsored post -- that is, an ad for which Amazon was paid -- for the book "Vaccines on Trial: Truth and Consequences of Mandatory Shots" by Pierre St. Clair, which Amazon was also offering for free to Kindle Unlimited subscribers.
UPDATE (3/2/2019): Amazon "has apparently started removing anti-vaccine documentaries from its Amazon Prime Video streaming service," CNN reports.
However, "a number of anti-vaccine books were still available for purchase on Amazon.com when CNN Business reviewed search results on Friday afternoon, and some were still being offered for free to Kindle Unlimited subscribers."
UPDATE (3/2/2019): Amazon "has apparently started removing anti-vaccine documentaries from its Amazon Prime Video streaming service," CNN reports.
However, "a number of anti-vaccine books were still available for purchase on Amazon.com when CNN Business reviewed search results on Friday afternoon, and some were still being offered for free to Kindle Unlimited subscribers."
There's hardly a freedom more important than the right to be wrong. The right to hold, discuss, and publish ideas that more people think are downright stupid and dangerous is the core right in a free society. After all, saying and doing what everyone in society thinks is correct needs little protection.
If people want to separate fools from their money on Amazon, that's their clear right. The nice thing is: if a clear bestseller emerges, education can then be focused on debunking that specific work, and have a very broad reach compared to a million stupid misconceptions across the internet.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Actually smoking is a really good comparison because failure to vaccinate harms not just the individual who doesn't have a vaccine but people around them. Here immunity is important https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity.
When their kids start dying, maybe they'll get a Clue. "buh buh buh you TOLD me vax are bad! You TOLD me my precious would develop immunities towards all these diseases!"
If not, then their genes are retired from the pool. Win.
Sounds cruel and cold, but this is natural selection. Weed out the crackpot conspiracists.
The scary part is their walking timebomb offspring will affect others. That's what truly makes the antivaxxers dangerous.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
You managed to Godwin the discussion by post number two. Chill a little, dude.
So, why complain? To me, if there is free or cheap content, then get it, read it, and post online reviews. If you read it and object, then post a negative review and shame them out of the market. Be honest about it. At least read it and post an honest review. That is how the market works. Why is the headline here trying to blame Amazon? To me, this is a great opportunity to let the review/free-market work.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
His name was Hitler and he knew what was right and what was wrong.
.
He was a Johnny-come-lately imitator to book banning politicians. That list starts in the mid 1500's about a year after moveable type was invented.
No.
If innocent children suffer or die because medical advice was not followed, the problem did not solve itself
Adults can decline care for themselves all they want, fine.
But withholding proven preventative care from children should be deemed reckless and punished accordingly.
Just like we punish parents who malnourish their children to death because of their (parents') crazy vegan beliefs.
I don't respond to or upvote ACs
How many people love to write a conspiracy-laden book about evil corporations and doctors, and promise enlightenment by not following that path?
My guess is the latter.
Is that really Amazon's fault that there are more Anti-Vax books than Pro-Vax? My guess is any brick-and-mortar book store would contain the same.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. Welcome to our brave new world where it is 'common sense' to ban everything that doesn't fall in the 'consensus'.
The word "ban" is nowhere in the article.
Your argument seems to be that any discussion whatsoever of what is sold by Amazon can have no purpose other than resulting in a call for banning books. Therefore, even if banning books is not mentioned at all, you will react as if it was a proposal to ban books.
By attempting to shut down discussion of something that you think might lead maybe to somebody expressing an opinion you don't like... you are the example of what you criticize.
Being vaccinated does not 100% protect you from getting sick in every case. Stop perpetuating this stupid nirvana fallacy that you morons like so much.
Under ideal circumstances a vaccine makes you immune. More commonly it gives your immune system a boost, a head start against a disease which can protect you from severe symptoms that leave you mutilated or dead. By extension vaccination reduces the chance that disease spreads by minimizing the time frame in which a carrier is also a vector.
...Also, I will certainly never get a vaccine shot with aluminium or mercury in it.
They stopped using Thimerosal in pediatric vaccines in 2000.
If you want to avoid mercury exposure, don't eat fish.
Measles is very contagious. Someone with measles coughs in a room, it could spread to other rooms of a building via the HVAC system and infect other people for hours. So, some anti-vaxxer moron brings their urchin to the pediatrician where there may be pregnant women, children with compromised immune systems and babies too young to be vaccinated and any of those people could get measles and potentially die.
Herd Immunity is un-vaccinated people being protected by vaccinated people. The idea is that if there are enough immune people around that the virus can't exist. So, how does that explain vaccinated people getting sick? Because that is what anti-vax people are getting blamed for.
If vaccines work as advertised, the only people anti-vaxers are POTENTIALLY hurting is themselves. The truth is that vaccines don't work, and they need a scapegoat.
Do you have any evidence that vaccinated people catching the diseases for which they were vaccinated is widespread? I doubt it, but it would be good to see it if you have it.
As for vaccinations being ineffective, how many people do you see with diseases like Polio and TB that used to be serious killers and/or cripplers? Personally, I haven't encountered (or really heard of) any people below about 60 (i.e. before vaccination became stable and widespread), but, again, if you have the data it would be good to see it.
Herd immunity is important for people who can't be vaccinated due to other medical issues, such as damaged immune systems. So it isn't true that the only people being hurt are anti-vaxxers and their own children.
Everything I've read and heard, the concern is that babies who can't be vaccinated and folks who have compromised immune systems are the ones being impacted by the anti-vaxxers. The most recent articles are the teenagers and young adults who have not been vaccinated are going behind their parents backs to get vaccinated. I've not read about any vaccinated people getting diseases from the non-vaccinated. Even a quick google search shows the same results. It's the folks who aren't vaccinated or who can't get vaccinated who are being impacted by the anti-vaxxers.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Actually smoking is a really good comparison because failure to vaccinate harms not just the individual who doesn't have a vaccine but people around them. Here immunity is important https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity.
You meant "herd" immunity
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
No, herd immunity is not just unvaccinated people getting protected, although it includes that category. And unvaccinated people are not just adults who have chosen not to vaccinate themselves despite being able to be vaccinated. People are unvaccinated because they are newborn babies, are immunocompromised eg are being treated for childhood cancers, are elderly, etc etc.
Did you really think your argument was even vaguely compelling? You sound like someone claiming a plane couldn't possibly fly because it weighs more than air -- just laughably naive and ignorant of the basic science.
The category of "unvaccinated people" includes people with unusual medical conditions who can't be vaccinated or can't be vaccinated on the usual vaccination schedules, and people who have literally been vaccinated but for whom the vaccine didn't work for whatever the reason.
Herd immunity is meant to protect them.
IMHO, most of the anti-vaxxers fall into the category of people who think they're gaining some advantage by not vaccinating while also simultaneously believing their risk is close to zero because everyone else got vaccinated and they can rely on herd immunity.
It's really the same mindset as people who cheat on their taxes. They want the benefits of what the taxes pay for, they just don't want to pay for them.
I'd wager that if there was some kind of disease that had a combination of infection vectors, both environmental and person-to-person, anti-vaxxers would be a lot less willing to rely on herd immunity since they would be at risk even with perfect herd immunity.
1. No, not everyone who gets the vaccine is immune, generally vaccines have around an 95% success rate.
2. No, not everyone who doesn't get a vaccine did it by choice. Some people with certain allergies can't have certain vaccines.
That's were herd immunity comes in, we are trying to protect THOSE people. By electing to not inoculate your children, you lower the effectiveness of herd immunity by skewing the coverage group in the wrong direction. Unfortunately though, your "choice" can endanger the lives of people around you and your children.
Non medical exemptions are dangerous to the population as a whole and should be banned.
No vaccine is 100% effective, and none advertise that they are. Annually, about 20% of flu deaths in otherwise healthy children (so kids without other conditions that would make them particularly vulnerable) in the US are children who were properly vaccinated. Then there are people who cannot, for legitimate reasons, get vaccinated. So no, it's not just people who choose not to that are protected by herd immunity.
As for vaccines not working, when was the last time you heard about polio epidemics in western countries? Measles was all but eliminated in the US before the anti-vax movement. It's still early days but we are also already seeing positive results from HPV vaccination campaigns as well. Going back to my first statistic, around 80% of the deaths in healthy children from the flu each year is in non-vaccinated kids. 4 out of every 5.
It's a bold face lie to say vaccines do not work.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Author of TFA assumes all vaccinations are 100% safe.
Exciting claim! Just do us all a little favour and quote any specific sentence you care to from TFA that backs up your contention, if you don't mind. Because it would be quite disingenuous, wouldn't it, to make a claim that the author believed something spurious and absurd like "100% safe" without having some actual specific evidence to show that was the case. It would, in fact, be a risible strawman, wouldn't it?
When my youngest son was two weeks old he developed whooping cough while on a trip to visit my parents. I remember him going from slight cough to blue lips in about an hour. I will never forget the desperate trip to the local hospital, the ambulance to the slightly larger regional hospital, and the air ambulance trip to the major center. We were lucky, my son is still with us and healthy today. But it was touch and go.
There is some question of how he contracted it, but still the most likely vector is from someone who was unvaccinated. The church I attended at the time was quite conservative and vaccination conspiracy theories were pretty popular then.
If vaccination conspiracy nuts only hurt themselves, I would tend to agree. But there are many diseases that you can't vaccinate for right away. Plus, remember, it's not the conspiracy nut who is the one hurt in any case. It's the conspiracy nut's innocent children. They don't deserve deadly diseases, or the knowledge that they passed on a lethal disease to an infant.
While I believe that parents should have the right to choose what is right for their children, I have a problem from people deliberately being paid for distributing false information to push a viewpoint.
If people believe so vehemently that vaccination is wrong and want to express their viewpoint fine, but unless they have verifiable, peer-reviewed, replicated information, then they should not be allowed to profit financially from it.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
A theory has a meaning in science and society, and there is no such thing as a anti-vaccination theory, because no evidence has been presented to agree with the hypothesis that vaccinates cause things such as Autism.
There's 15 results for anti-vaccination when you search for vaccination. While it's the majority of the search results I don't think one could call 15 results out of the millions of books Amazon carries to be thriving.
The only thing that I might object to is if Amazon lets sponsored posts link to objectionable content such as anti-vaccination books.
Some kid who got vaccinated but didn't get immunity will die.
They will find out their kid got it from some kind in school who wasn't vaccinated.
It will come out that the kid's parents were influenced by anti-vaccination groups.
When this happens in the USA, the lawsuits will fly.
Eventually, the courts will say the anti-vaccination groups are not responsible in this particular case, but there will be enough legal uncertaintly about future cases that corporate beheamoths will give them the heave-ho to protect their own bottom line.
The courts will also find the other kids' parents negligent, which will scare most parents into vaccinating their kids, either to avoid being sued or because they don't want to feel guilty if their own kid's friend dies of something they caught from their kid.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Herd Immunity is un-vaccinated people being protected by vaccinated people. The idea is that if there are enough immune people around that the virus can't exist. So, how does that explain vaccinated people getting sick? Because that is what anti-vax people are getting blamed for.
If vaccines work as advertised, the only people anti-vaxers are POTENTIALLY hurting is themselves. The truth is that vaccines don't work, and they need a scapegoat.
I'll go get some popcorn. Tell us all some more dumb shit, so that I can think less of my fellow man.
THIS!
I've argued with the Anti-Vaxx militants, they are seriously long on opinion and very short on knowledge and caring about anybody including their own children.
Measles is a SERIOUS illness for babies not yet born or to young to be vaccinated. It may not be as serious as it used to be, when it killed 1 in 10K or so, but it can still kill. It still causes serious illness, high fevers, and sends kids to the hospital with frightening frequency. It is VERY easy to transmit and extremely hard to avoid exposure for the unvaccinated.
The problem here is that the Anti-Vaxx lobby have a whole host of "The MMR vaccine causes X" statements which are absolute hogwash. I've heard it causes autism, SIDS and all sorts of childhood illnesses. NONE of these theories are borne out in the scientific studies, none. Yet they keep pushing them, scaring the young impressionable parent who think they are doing right by their kids by refusing the vaccines in their religious like fervor.
The MMR vaccine is highly effective if administered as directed. It is also safe, compared to the alternative.
What's missing here is that most parents don't have any experience with any of these nasty childhood illnesses. The vaccines have been so very effective that nobody remembers what polio was or how unpleasant Measles really is for children. They have no idea what they are avoiding, so the minimal risks associated with the vaccine look huge in comparison.
I wonder if the whole anti-vaxx thing would die on the vine if some illness like Measles was running rampant, kids where routinely getting seriously ill, some where hospitalized and even a few died? I think it would and quick. The Anti-Vaxx Zealots would be relegated to the tin-foil hat conspiracy level and laughed at like the flat earth folks, because THAT's exactly what they really are.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Actually the problem will not solve itself.
They are people people who are not vaccinated for legitimate health concerns from the vaccines, they can get sick from the normal healthy person who gets sick, because they were stupid.
Also with almost every health problem, we need to pay for other people getting ill, even in a Multi-payer health system.
Your insurance rates are high, because the insurance company needs to pay for the sick people (often from preventable illnesses). Those without Insurances, will often be unable to pay for the services, forcing Health care institutions to Eat the cost... That Cost will then go into the Fee Schedule and raise the cost of everything else.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
While I believe that parents should have the right to choose what is right for their children
Like to bring back ancient Greek man-boy love? Or to sell off their daughters at tween ages?
Let us not pretend that parents always have their children's best interests in mind.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No medication is 100% safe. Nothing that changes anything can be 100% safe. If you want safe go for homeopathy which if properly prepared is 100% safe - but it of course doesn't do shit.
You get more mercury from food in a week than from a vaccine injection. I guess you'll stop eating too?
Should a Christian book store be forced to carry Christopher Hitchens or Salman Rushdie books?
Amazon is free to stock and promote what Amazon wants to stock and promote -- the same as any other business. The first amendment protects against government interference in speech -- and it's what Orwell warned us about -- not the ability of a sovereign merchant to choose the products they sell.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
You just proved you are an idiot. Yes the body can produce antibodies to the REAL virus however with a much weaker response, the vaccine allow the immune system to learn how to identify the REAL virus before being infected. This is something you should have learned in school however I guess you are home-schooled?
Yeah these outbreaks have nothing to do with the massive unchecked immigration from the 3rd world.
Exactly. Finally an AC that isn't a shit-slinging moron! /s
Annually, about 20% of flu deaths in otherwise healthy children (so kids without other conditions that would make them particularly vulnerable) in the US are children who were properly vaccinated.
This isn't quite the same issue. The more common reason that people get influenza after being vaccinated is that there is no single influenza virus. Each year, the flu shot includes the strains that medical professionals predict to be the most common, and it's very difficult to get that prediction correct.
So you have to also include the question of how many of those 20% died from an influenza strain that was part of the vaccine that year. It's almost certainly greater than zero since, as you said, no vaccine is guaranteed effective, but it's probably less than all of them.
Measles still has a mortality of 1 in 10k, with 1 in 1k suffering permanent severe effects. And unfortunately I'm not old enough to get vaccinated back when I was a kid, so I went through the whole MMR routine. I survived, as you can see. But I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. Even if there wasn't a fairly high chance of lasting effects, it's something you should protect your kids from if you can.
Do anti-vaxxers hate their kids that much that they want them to get sick?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hitler didn't invent book burnings. He just made a spectacle out of it.
Religions all over the world have done so far, far longer than any nationalism existed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Physician here. Arguably, no intervention is health care is 100% effective.
It is maddening that anti-vaxxers say vaccines are not 100% effective so they are ineffective. It is flawed logic. Effective means it makes a difference when studied in a large group of people. Not effective means it has no effect on a large study group.
Many interventions in health care have numbers needed to treat (NNT) in the 10 or even 100 range to create one positive outcome. These are effective interventions. Vaccines are highly effective compared to most other interventions done in healthcare. Finding effective interventions in health care is hard.
On the other hand, antivaxxers and the like often push vitamins, herbs, adjustments, accupuncture and all sorts of other interventions that have no proven efficacy or even have been proven to have no efficacy (NNT is infinity!). There logic is literally backwards.
Herd Immunity is un-vaccinated people being protected by vaccinated people. The idea is that if there are enough immune people around that the virus can't exist. So, how does that explain vaccinated people getting sick? Because that is what anti-vax people are getting blamed for.
Wrong. There are babies who are too young to be vaccinated yet, and there are babies who for some reason such as having compromised immune systems can't be vaccinated.
These are the people at risk.
Herd Immunity is un-vaccinated people being protected by vaccinated people. The idea is that if there are enough immune people around that the virus can't exist. So, how does that explain vaccinated people getting sick? Because that is what anti-vax people are getting blamed for.
If vaccines work as advertised, the only people anti-vaxers are POTENTIALLY hurting is themselves. The truth is that vaccines don't work, and they need a scapegoat.
Do you have any evidence that vaccinated people catching the diseases for which they were vaccinated is widespread? I doubt it, but it would be good to see it if you have it.
I believe with one of the latest measles outbreaks there were something like 50-150 people sickened, 2 of whom had been vaccinated while the rest were unvaccinated.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I agree with this. Speech, however stupid, should not be suppressed. But the thing I do worry about is not the books, but the algorithms Amazon may be using to suggest them to people. In particular, is their software pushing these books to people who are not specifically looking for them, but may have browsing and buying habits that suggest they may be influenced by them? For example if a new parent starts buying baby things, and looking for books on child health, do these books get suggested? That, I would have a problem with.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
If you don't like what you read in a book, then go write your own book, or create an organization to promulgate your correct thinking point of view. Sometimes I think people want to give up a thousand years of hard-won individual freedoms just because they are more worried about social justice or correct thinking about vaccines than they are about basic individual freedom.
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
The numbers are from the CDC and are for patients vaccinated for the strains that infected them.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
On the other hand, antivaxxers and the like often push vitamins, herbs, adjustments, accupuncture and all sorts of other interventions that have no proven efficacy or even have been proven to have no efficacy (NNT is infinity!). There logic is literally backwards.
This always gets me. They argue on the one had about the mulitbillion dollar pharma industry can't be trusted because they put profits above health, then suck up the completely unproven BS from the multibillion dollar supplement industry.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Ignorance is strength ...
Is it me or is it highly ironic to read this statement here? From someone defending idiots digging themselves deeper into their "but I wanna believe this bullshit" bubble.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sadly, skepticism has turned into "The (insert random boogeyman here) say A, so I rather believe B without reason because it MUST be true!"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The USA is based on the freedom to be as stupid as you want to be, then sue someone for your own stupidity and hope that you find 12 dimwits too stupid to weasel out of jury duty to think "that could have been me!"
That's the new American dream, people!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Say, did people also have polio? Or smallpox?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Really? People fled TO the Ukraine.
Where did they come from? Elbonia?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
we measured the total mercury concentration in vegetables and grain crops collected from farms located near two coal-fired power plants. We found that 79% of vegetable samples and 67% of grain samples exceeded the PTWI’s food safety standards
https://www.nature.com/article...
Arsenic in rice is also very common.
Measles still has a mortality of 1 in 10k, with 1 in 1k suffering permanent severe effects. And unfortunately I'm not old enough to get vaccinated back when I was a kid, so I went through the whole MMR routine. I survived, as you can see. But I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. Even if there wasn't a fairly high chance of lasting effects, it's something you should protect your kids from if you can.
Do anti-vaxxers hate their kids that much that they want them to get sick?
Well.... I'm going to be fair and say they are motivated to keep their kids from harm, but the Anti Vaxxers are woefully informed about the *actual* risks and are falling prey to the religious zealot like cult of anti-vaccines.
Most are woefully informed even about their own arguments and are caught up in the emotional content of all the sob story anecdotal evidence (both real and just imagined) about how some kid got the MMR vaccine and then got diagnosed with Autism or dies from SIDS. Where the stories may be sometimes true, the cause and effect relationship is NOT supported by actual scientific research. Where I feel for these parents, who believe their agreeing to getting their kid vaccinated caused such harm, and are swimming in both grief and guilt, I DON'T understand how they can be so resistant to the facts.
How the vile hucksters of the human race can prey on these hapless grieving parents defies my comprehension. I think those that push such garbage should be roundly condemned for the harm they are causing and I wish there was some way to make it illegal to make unfounded medical claims without some kind of recourse, either by authorities or by those who fall victim to their deception.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
While I believe that parents should have the right to choose what is right for their children,
Like genital mutilation ?
Well, a dead kid sure is less work than an autistic kid, I can see their motivation...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Thanks for clarifying that.
You are absolutely correct. I think there are two semi-conflicting powers at play here. One is opinion and the other is education. An author writes a book/blog/article and offers his/her opinion and attempts to share their beliefs.
But the other (and maybe I've miscategorized it) is teaching the unwashed masses. It's one thing to show up to a rally and listen to the voices of people sharing. In this world though an Algorithm starts sharing content with you - possibly misrepresenting the level of truthfulness / believably of a particular subject. There's no human for you to judge ("gosh that person sounds unhinged").
Sure, some people don't want to vaccinate on religious (or other like) grounds. And they can write about it, share their ideals. But for some far out wacky ideas - conspiracies that even the conspiracy leaders call wacko -- the algorithm will start providing you unbalanced info about. Such that the "ignorant" will be unable to discern a trust level. "Gee - Youtube showed me 100 videos on this topic, it must be true"
The earth is flat. How many others don't vaccinate, not due to shared beliefs, but rather misinformation shared with them while traveling down the Google-Algorithm rabbit hole?
But we can't be burning books to stomp out ideas we don't like.
Who cares? The problem will solve itself, like smoking, or obesity or basically anything else along those lines.
I care, Anonymous Coward, for two reasons -
1) Vaccinations don't work 100% - For them to work you need "herd immunity." While it's true my kids are fully vaccinated, it's possible that for whatever biochemical reason a particular vaccine they got didn't work. By having everyone around them also vaccinated, it means they're also protected. Ironically, this "herd immunity" is why up to recently, anti-vaxxers believed their kids don't need vaccines - Because everyone else around them is protected their kids were protected too. However, the reduced vaccination levels mean the herd immunity isn't working as well any more.
2) I don't want to kids to suffer. For the problem to "solve itself" as you describe, kids of stupid, ignorant parents will have to suffer with measles, mumps, chicken pox, and, god help us, polio and other diseases. Those kids will suffer, and maybe even die, or be crippled for fault of their own. As a parent of young children saying child-suffering is OK is unacceptable to me.
And it should be to you too.
The so-called 'religious right' has been selling 'science is of the Devil' for a long time now, because 'knowledge is power' and The Few that hold positions of power within mainstream religion are no different than anyone else who has power: they don't want to give it up, and having people be knowledgeable makes them harder to maintain control over. I wouldn't at all be surprised if mainstream religion has something to do with the anti-vax 'movement'.
Hey idiot, if you're going to post sarcasm on that level then you need to add the tag to the end:
All this censorship is not a good way to go.
Yes, with the vaccination stuff, I think the goal is good. That's not the point. Free speech protection isn't needed for the viewpoints that all the "right" people think are good.
The day will come when the ascendant viewpoint is not something that you think is right or good. And it will be you who isn't going to be allowed to say anything against it. But by then, it will be too late.
Is that this article was written. It feels like there's a vague implication of "they need to stop."
I think a more accurate headline would have been "Anti-Vaccination Conspiracy Theories Remain Popular and Lucrative - Amazon Marketplace Reflects This". And, for that matter, it's not limited to anti-vaccination conspiracy theories. Societies have always had problems with people who are all too willing to believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary, and others willing to exploit those people for money.
When your mirror shows you something that upsets you, the correct solution is not to try to bend the mirror.
For example if a new parent starts buying baby things, and looking for books on child health, do these books get suggested?
Its entirely possible. If it doesn't happen today, then it could happen tomorrow.
Perhaps one way people can have their say is that pro-vaccers could borrow the content from another source, such as a library,
or borrow or buy a used copy from someone who already owns the book
(To avoid purchasing on Amazon and contributing to boosting sales of product), and then write Helpful 1-star Reviews on Amazon that
eloquently detail issues with the books.
Amazon's recommendations engine is based on statistical techniques that are in general called "Machine Learning".
In general, their goal is to make the recommendations that maximize Amazon's revenue, in other words: they try to predict
which categories of items the shopper would be most likely to purchase, and from there... there's some kind of priority based on
the price of the item and Amazon's expected revenue from selling that item, so as to prefer recommendations that make more $$$ for Amazon.
However, they can make changes to the system at any time, and learning algorithms vary their behavior over time as well.
Notice how the implication in these things is that these companies must *police truth*. This is a book store that has made itself a huge force in the bookselling market- so much so that it moved on to pretty much any other physical object you may wish to buy.
And now it is being called on to ascertain that certain political movements are banned? I'm sure they'll start with the wrong ones, but you'd be a fool to think they'll end there too.
When nearly every single doctor on the planet says that vaccines help more than harm, by orders of magnitude, then the opinions of a vocal minority should not hold nearly the weight of that given by the people whose job it is to know such things. Sure, research both sides, but don't expect a mom's 15 minute search on the internet to be "equal and fair" to what is being presented by a licensed medical professional.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Everything I've read and heard, the concern is that babies who can't be vaccinated and folks who have compromised immune systems are the ones being impacted by the anti-vaxxers. The most recent articles are the teenagers and young adults who have not been vaccinated are going behind their parents backs to get vaccinated. I've not read about any vaccinated people getting diseases from the non-vaccinated. Even a quick google search shows the same results. It's the folks who aren't vaccinated or who can't get vaccinated who are being impacted by the anti-vaxxers.
[John]
I guess that explains why it's such a topic for Hollywood
Vaccines are 95ish percent effective (varies by vaccine). And no, that isn't some big new discovery. We have always known that vaccines don't always work. Herd immunity protects the 5%ish where the vaccine just doesn't work.
As well as the immunocompromised and those too young to get the vaccine.
So no, antivaxxers are not just harming themselves....in fact they are usually vaccinated themselves so they're actually harming their children. In addition, there's a lot of other people put at risk when antivaxxers destroy herd immunity.
Same class of folk who believe that the harm that can arise from not wearing their seat belt is limited to themselves.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
I will admit that claim is an assumption of mine, but one I feel very safe about.
You really shouldn't feel safe about it. We've known vaccines are not 100% safe since vaccines were invented. If you're interested in the injury rate for any specific vaccine, that information is on the FDA and CDC web sites.
Vaccines will injure about one person in every 1.2M doses. The injury is usually an allergic reaction, which is easily countered in the small number of those reactions that turn out to be life threatening.
The diseases being vaccinated against cause something on the order of 1 death in every 1000 infections. You'll note that 1 in 1000 is quite a bit higher than 1 in 1,200,000. And death is a lot harder to counter than a severe allergic reaction.
You do realize the measles outbreaks are coming from all the third-world illegals flooding through our porous borders, right?
The actual evidence shows not.
Source of the measles is primarily U.S. travelers who visit other countries and bring measles home:
Most notably, from Israel, where a significant Orthodox population does not believe in vaccinations; but also from France (the 2011 outbreak) and from the Philippines (the 2014 outbreak).
https://www.contagionlive.com/news/travel-associated-measles-outbreaks-on-the-rise-in-us
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
He [Hitler] was a Johnny-come-lately imitator to book banning politicians. That list starts in the mid 1500's about a year after moveable type was invented.
The list starts with the burning of the Library at Alexandria.
Another great contribution form Islam, the religion of peace, to world culture!
Quite a feat, really, since the burning of the library of Alexandria occurred at the Siege of Alexandria in 48 BC, about six hundred years before Muhammad was born.
For this to be useful, you need to know what percentage of kids are vaccinated for the flu. According to the CDC 57.9% of children get vaccinated, so roughly half. This means that not getting the vaccine roughly increases the chance of death by a factor of 4. While this is essentially what you said, the number could be very different depending on the number of kids getting vaccinated.
Chris Mesterharm
There are only 18 results for the word 'vaccine'?
Who claimed that?! Except you?
Nobody sane says that vaccinated people are 100% immune.
Why don't one of you explain what medical qualifications Jenner had, when he 'discovered' 'vaccination'? Oh wait - he had none.
Huh? Edward Jenner earned his M.D. from University of St Andrews in 1792 and did his internship in surgery and anatomy at St George's, University of London. He had been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society for his work in zoology in 1788, eight years before his famous work on the Smallpox inoculation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner
Oh, and his 1788 paper on the Cuckoo is now widely regarded as being the first study of the remarkable life cycle of the bird.
try: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I wonder if the whole anti-vaxx thing would die on the vine if some illness like Measles was running rampant, kids where routinely getting seriously ill, some where hospitalized and even a few died?
I doubt it the flu takes lives every year, more than gun violence and still less than 50% of people get vaccinated.
What is it with censorship and the ability of people to find and publish information?
The internet gets all kinds of calls to ban information, links?
Now its books on topics?
Whats next?
German history, politics, art, news and culture?
Would Spain like to see books about Catalonia removed?
France like to remove books that have jokes about French politicians?
China like books and computer games from Taiwan the real China removed? No books on the Tiananmen Papers?
What other health topics get removed?
Books on pollution?
Books about escaping a religion, faith, cult? The history of a faith, religion, cult?
What other books on health care and the history of medicine need to be removed?
DRM?
Crypto?
Spiritual books?
Books on lock picking?
Meme art books?
Math books?
How many books by George Orwell should be banned?
Book on faith?
Books with ghosts and witchcraft?
Defamation of leaders, politicians, mil history, heroes, space flight? Books on the security services and whistleblowers? No books on the CIA, NSA by whistleblowers?
The UK have a lot of books about the IRA it wants not found?
The USA has a freedom to publish and the freedom to find a book, read it and write a review.
People then have the right to read that review and buy the same book, comment on it and buy more books by the same author and publisher.
On any topic they are interested in.
Time for a better way to publish books on demand and sell book online. Paper and electronic editions.
Let people find the books they want, support the authors and publishers they want to support.
Make reading great again.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
When nearly every single doctor on the planet says that vaccines help more than harm, by orders of magnitude, then the opinions of a vocal minority should not hold nearly the weight of that given by the people whose job it is to know such things. Sure, research both sides, but don't expect a mom's 15 minute search on the internet to be "equal and fair" to what is being presented by a licensed medical professional.
The problem with is Amazon trying to be the truth police.
Will they try to police the accuracy of all books that touch on medical topics? Other scientific topics? Historical topics? Current events?
If not, why not? What expectations should we have of them?
Isn't it maybe better to just encourage people to take things with a grain of salt, and let Amazon just be a bookstore?
Anti-Vaccination books would rate very low on the Trump Book Flamability index.
Climate Change books would score a much higher flammability rating.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
You are right to be skeptical about specific studies, since this is very much an issue, and there is definitely a problem.
But vaccinations have such an overwhelming amount of evidence in their favour, from so many disparate sources, that you cannot put it into the same category.
Denying the efficacy of vaccinations is as ridiculous as denying gravity, or evolution, or Bernoulli's principal. That's how solid the evidence is. Hell, before people even understood germ theory, they would perform blood transfusions because they noticed that people who recovered from certain illnesses wouldn't get sick from other illnesses. (Needless to say, results were a tad... mixed...)
Hypothetically, if 20% of the deaths are from vaccinated kids and only 1% of the kids are vaccinated then don't take the vaccination because it is increasing the risk of death from the flu. In terms of fruit, if 20 apples are rotten and 80 bananas are rotten, you might assume that bananas are more likely to be rotten. But if I started with 20 apples and 10000 bananas you'd be wrong. The apples are 100% rotten/dead while the bananas are 0.8% rotten. This is probably based on Bayes Rule.
Chris Mesterharm
Is someone thinking today is the day to thaw the polio virus and ready it for distribution?
Dude... the number of forced-vax nazis on this thread who espouse literal-Nazi policies makes it an apt comparison.
And all this violently angry butthurt is over... measles? Measles! I had measles as a kid. Every kid I knew got the measles. It was a _mildly annoying_ ailment. Not in the same ballpark as polio - not even in the same league.
Yet here we are with nazi assholes positively screaming for the iron boot of the state to stomp on anyone who doesn't want to get pumped full of pharma industry products. 'Cuz measles. For real, 'cuz measles?
Here's a theory: maybe the brains of forced-vax nazis were addled by the crazy chemicals in all those unnecessary vaccines they enjoy taking.
You realize that most vaccine-choice advocates are not actually "anti-vax", a term of disparagement coined by Big Pharma PR flacks, don't you? Rather vaccine-choicers are concerned about _unnecessary and excessive_ vaccination. Very few indeed are against vaccination for truly dangerous diseases like polio. However very many people do think it is unwise to get injected with little-understood Pharma products just to avoid potential minor inconveniences like flu or measles.
Keyword: iatrogenic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
I'm against unnecessary and excessive vaccination. For example I would never get a malaria shot in Sweden if I don't plan to leave the country.
Vaccination and the question whether to do it is a matter of probabilities. How likely is it to contract the disease, how severe and likely are the consequences of the disease, how severe and likely are the consequences of the vaccine. And with MRR, probability is heavily on the "get it the fuck NOW" side.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You do realize, of course, that the USA is not the entire world and that other countries have doctors who are not owned by the pharma companies. Besides, if you think that doctors don't do any research and only vaccinate people because they're "told" to, you're the moron.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Dude... the number of forced-vax nazis on this thread who espouse literal-Nazi policies makes it an apt comparison.
Godwin's law. Hitler!! They're like Hitler!!
bullshit.
If you want to do a Hitler comparison, they are the reverse-Hitler. Hitler was "we are going to kill all of you, men, women, and children alike". The pro vaccination people are "we are going to save your childrens' lives, even if you don't care."
And all this violently angry butthurt is over... measles? Measles! I had measles as a kid. Every kid I knew got the measles. It was a _mildly annoying_ ailment. Not in the same ballpark as polio - not even in the same league.
Read this one: https://io9.gizmodo.com/read-r...
Good news! People who think and want to dig into the matter can do so. There's plenty of information available on CDC and NIH websites, to start with. Lots of people could access scientific papers through university libraries, or find more stuff on-line. The 21st Century is a great time for those who like to check up on things.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yes, you do have [the] right to charge for False Information.
It is sold and pushed down your throat every minute of every day via the radio, TV, intertubes, and print media.
For instance: The fake/biased/made up 'news' of Dan Rather got him and his network successfully sued several times but that didn't stop him or his network because the lies catered to a certain subset and advertisers paid dearly to have their ads pushed to that subset.
Dan Rather was not a 'news' man, rather he was just another used car sales man.
Yet he is touted as an icon. Wow.
He sure loved his Cowboy Poetry though.
No brain, no pain.
Different people, parents and pediatricians alike, have different opinions when and how far and by what means it is safe to travel with an infant. A certain amount of travel will be required from day one (well, two or three) for anyone who is not walking distance from a hospital. What about people who live a three hour drive from a hospital? Do you suggest everyone in those circumstances has to rent a room in the hospital's locale for two months? Now, in this particular case, with pertussis incubating in him, it was decidedly unsafe to travel. I had no way of knowing that, though, and stand by my decision to take him to see his grandparents. I am of the opinion that, in general, infants are more robust than you seem to give them credit for.
That being said, just as a sanity check, I did some research just now on what the prevailing opinion is of health-care providers and parents alike with respect to when it's safe to travel with an infant. The prevailing opinion that I can see is that a moderate road trip after an infant's two-week checkup is perfectly safe, and not uncommon. I see no significant difference between putting him to bed at night in his crib or in his car seat. He slept the whole way.
I suspect if you are a parent then you are likely a parent of one. First-time parents are always over-protective. There's nothing wrong with that, per se. The problem is in today's society where more and more parents have only one child, many parents are not growing out of their over-protectiveness and there is less institutional knowledge being passed on by those who have had two or three or more.
We can't wrap up our child in cellophane until after they have been immunized against everything. Which is why it's so important for as much of the public as a whole to get immunized.
Unless it also helps spread the disease. You do know that you are contagious to others after getting a whooping cough vaccine, right?
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Measles is a SERIOUS illness for babies not yet born or to young to be vaccinated.
And chicken pox is just as deadly, right?
And Rotavirus, and Varicella, which is as bad as getting a cold.
Or tetanus, which you can get after getting infected anyway.
Or Hepatitis B, which is a sexually transmitted disease, for children!
And don't forget the Mumps part of MMR has been less than half as effective as they told you it was.
I wonder if the whole anti-vaxx thing would die on the vine if some illness like Measles was running rampant, kids where routinely getting seriously ill, some where hospitalized and even a few died?
Or, I wonder if we would find out that Measles wasn't really as dangerous as we are told. Everyone I know who was old enough to have lived when Measles was a problem says they never knew anyone who died. So you are out of school a couple of weeks with some rashes then it is over. Like Chicken Pox was when I was a kid. But now we are all told how dangerous it is to not be vaccinated for Chicken Pox. Never mind that if you get Shingles as an adult, the fix is the same as if you had been getting the vaccines every 10 years for life. So start now and take it over and over and over, or just wait and take it when needed.
It all sounds like people trying to push an unneeded medical product for more profit.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Right, but some of your flu vaccines that you want to push have had effects that would be opposite of desired. Getting a vaccine should never make you more likely to get a flu of another strain. But that has happened. Until you understand how and why, perhaps you should not be pushing experiments onto unsuspecting people and not letting them have a choice in the matter.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Now that your son has lifetime immunity for Whooping cough, he still has to get the unnecessary vaccine and risk the harm associated with it every time a booster is needed. That makes total sense to me.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Ah, so you are falling for the AntiVaxx dogma eh?
Truth be told here, vaccines have saved millions of lives and carry very low risk when properly and appropriately administered. This is FACT. It is not debatable in any meaningful scientific way. I suggest that you drop the Anti-Vaxx dogma for a bit and take each of your objections in turn and get the facts about the question. ALL the facts, not just what the AntiVaxx dogma gives you.
Look, I've been down this rabbit hole a number of times with multiple folks who sound just like you. Making boasts about facts that are not based in usable evidence. The official numbers say 1 in 10,000 who get the measles die from it. This number is consistent with the 122,000 deaths a year from the illness world wide (mostly in poor, unvaccinated populations). The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 and is a component in the MMR vaccine, usually given in two doses.and since 1963 the instances of the illness in the USA went from about 700,000/year to almost none, saving about 70 lives a year in the USA alone.
Few people who are parents to day remember the time when the vaccine existed, and unless you are about 70 or older, of course you don't know of anybody who's had the measles. You can thank the vaccine for that. But kids die from this every day, maybe not in the USA, but they are still dying needlessly.
Now.. Before we go down the "it's a conspiracy for big pharma profits" rabbit hole, I suggest you whoa up a bit. I'm not going to debate the cost issues in our medical practice in the USA with you. But I will point out that the MMR vaccine is available on the cheap from most county and state health departments if you are unable (or just unwilling) to pay your doctor for it. Also, I'm going to point out that the MMR vaccine is really THREE vaccines in one, combined in 1974 to reduce costs and increase convenience for the kiddos (who now get one jab, instead of three). Somehow, this doesn't look like a way to make money to me. So how does your theory go again?
Yea, I know, you are not impressed.. So, I'm going to just say, you need to get the actual facts here and stop with the half truths and opinions of the anti-vax dogma pushers... But I'm afraid my asking you to do some actual fact finding work will fall on deaf ears.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If I had wanted to, I could have withheld him from getting pertussis vaccines. I didn't, though. Getting a disease is not necessarily a lifetime immunity. Also, the acellular pertussis vaccine which has been distributed since about 1982 has exceedingly low risk. Since pertussis is typically mixed with diphtheria and tetanus, it would have complicated his vaccine regimen.
There is a higher risk of a random staph aureus spore in the air land on the needle tip in the few seconds it's exposed to the air and him getting flesh eating disease from the needle itself than there is a complication from the pertussis vaccine itself.
Not sure where your cynicism about vaccine risks comes from.