YouTube Breeding Harmful Scientific Misinformation 816
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."
Natural selection at work (Score:1, Informative)
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?"
Re:Not just Vaccination, also Evolution (Score:1, Informative)
"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.
Re:Vaccinations (Score:2, Informative)
Keep it up. The world needs as much clueless misinformation as it can get. (Sarcasm.)
Re:Not just Vaccination, also Evolution (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Not just Vaccination, also Evolution (Score:4, Informative)
If you had any background in the debate, you'd know fundamentalist Christians represent a large part of the movement against vaccines [150m.com], some going so far as to believe vaccines cut you off from God [vaclib.org].
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 [cbsnews.com].
So, once again, before calling troll because someone said something you don't like, consider educating yourself on matters.
Re:Not surprising at all. (Score:3, Informative)
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/ [slate.com]
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.
Re:Not just Vaccination, also Evolution (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Great example (Score:3, Informative)
As for the chills and fever, the flu vaccine isn't a live virus vaccine. No infectious agents involved.
Re:Big deal (Score:2, Informative)
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 [youtube.com] 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 [nytimes.com]
Re:Vaccinations (Score:2, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:Big deal (Score:4, Informative)
I agree, it should be the way you say, but it's not.
Re:Great example (Score:2, Informative)
In other words, Granny may have gotten the vaccine (against the often-lethal flu X, Y, and Z) but then fell ill to the flu ( variant J ) anyhow. So while you may moan about Granny getting the flu, she may have very well been exposed to multiple variants which she did not also get.
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Oh come on... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Time for a science reality check. (Score:3, Informative)
"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.
Re:Big deal (Score:2, Informative)
No it doesn't you fucking liar (Score:1, Informative)
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?
Valid concerns over some vaccinations (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Cattle...? Thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org]. In addition, the CDC, FDA, and WHO categorically reject any relationship between Thimerosal and autism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy [wikipedia.org]. 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 [healthcentral.com]
http://www.boystownpediatrics.org/HealthTips/immunization.asp
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/12/1573 [ama-assn.org] (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 [wikipedia.org]
. 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.
Re:Big deal (Score:1, Informative)