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."

WTF?

[Elemenope]

Who is stupid enough to go to Youtube for authoritative information about anything? I mean, I get why people might use something like Wikipedia for this (with all the pitfalls that can bring), but this just plain does not make sense to me.

Getting what you deserve...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go to YouTube to get scientific information concerning your own health you deserve exactly what you get. And hopefully the rest of the human race will also get what they deserve.

You'll die from having the wrong information and the collective gene pool will get just a little bit cleaner.

Funny you mention this

[wamerocity]

ON my medical application, I coined the new word "Google-gnosis" describing the problem with people self-diagnosing based on information found on the internet, making the point that Doctors are now going to have to make more of an effort to know what information and misinformation is out there, and how Doctors are going to have to spend more time teaching people correct information to dispel popular myths that get spread around. This is case in point for me. Maybe I should bring this up in my next interview...

Re:Big deal? Sort of...

[motek]

I can't be sure of that, but I have an impression you somehow suggest these researchers blame youtube. It isn't so - or at least TFA doesn't say anything of the sort. Rather, they simply state the facts.

My interpretation of these facts is that the general public is uneducated, panicky and superstitious. And, more importantly, it has been like that all along. It was just that superstition and dubious reasoning never had a forum that powerful. And now, it is all for everybody to see and appreciate. The famous(?) SF author Lem is reputed to say: before the Internet, I had no idea how many idiots were out there.

Re:Funny you mention this

[wamerocity]

Yes, but there is a big difference. One is that people are making choices based on INCORRECT information, while the situation you described above describes people making incorrect assumptions with correct information. If I read a book and think that I might have cancer when I don't - only psychological harm done. But If I have cancer and my friend thinks that I just have toxins in me and I just need to do a colon flush or take some chinese herbal meds, then there's a huge problem. I doubt many of these videos are people just looking to increase their overall wellness. These are people who think that they shouldn't vaccinate their children! Big difference in the possible harm that can be done.

Not surprising at all.

[phorest]

I'll spout some anecdotal evidence, though YMMV.
Being an old-timer, I can tell you that when I went to school all we had were polio vaccinations and tetanus. Out of a class of about 200 kids, 1 in 25 may have had bizarre allergies, (milk, grass, wheat, eggs etc.) Now it seems that most kids have some type of allergy or asthma, yet we live in such sterile times. It's not hard to conclude/perceive that something happened in the 70's and beyond. Was it in the vaccinations?

It's probably very easy for a lot of trepidation about vaccines because of past experience, anecdotal it may very-well be, however it does not help when polititians, school boards, professional organizations (AMA) AND big drugcos all gang up and require new vaccines mandatory as soon as the trial period is complete. I'm glad I don't have children in school (or children at all for that matter). I'd be leery too. (hope my tinfoil hat isn't showing)

Do you get the flu shot every year? That's a vaccine. Do you realize it's a crap-shoot as to whether -or- not it will even be effective against the "projected strain" the powers that be are pushing? I thought not.

No wonder a good portion of society distrust vaccines in general.

Now, get off my lawn.

This is news?

[overshoot]

A rumor is halfway around the world before the truth can get out the door.

This weekend I had a chat with a fine gentleman who is one of the youngest polio survivors in the USA. He's in pretty good shape (he's in his 50s) but from visits with many others he knows what his future is like. Apparently, those who recover from polio do so by "swapping in" spare neurological paths -- the same ones that keep the rest of us functional as time takes its toll. Well, his "spares" are already used, so any additional losses as he ages are coming straight from function.

Measles? Look up the numbers. Case mortality for measles in the USA has been steady for over thirty years at 2/1000. In 1964, there were about 400,000 cases reported. Back when it was nearly universal, every state had well-filled schools for the deaf and blind -- most of them there thanks to neurological sequelae to measles, and which are still just as common as ever on a per-case basis. Those schools are empty now.

I have a smallpox vaccination scar on my arm, and wear it proudly. Most of you don't. You're welcome.

If you listen to the anti-vaccinationists, the vaccines are immeasurably worse than polio, measles, and smallpox. The best answer to that was stated by George Santayana [wikipedia.org]. The rest is commentary; go and learn it.

Re:Big deal

[Gninnaf]

What if I'm as smart and as well educated as you. What if the drug companies manipulate government and media to push drugs, vacinations, medicine, on people for profit. What if those users would really be more safe and healthy without it? Isn't it possible that a alarmist less accurate youtube video could spur people to have a more healthy skepticism when it comes to what they put in their bodies?

Re:Big deal

[jdavidb]

Because before YouTube it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience, and that limited the damage they could do.

Huh? I'm pretty sure this IntarWeb thing has been around a lot longer than Youtube, giving people [url=http://www.nearlyfreespeech.net]nearly costless speech[/url] to the world.

YouTube is irrelevant

[pudge]

When Jenny McCarthy goes on to Oprah, to the delight of millions of viewers, to say that "science" is wrong because "my son is the science" that proves vaccines cause autism ... I don't think YouTube is really a significant factor in this discussion.

Re:Vaccinations

[eli pabst]

Please stop spreading that FUD. There have been several recent huge studies looking at the link between Thimerosal (mercury) and autism and have found nothing. They were much larger and better designed and would have seen an effect if there was one.

There have been studies that have shown the rise in autism directly linked to the rise in the use of mercury in vaccines in 3rd world countries.

Except that the rate of autism hasn't changed at all in countries like Japan where the use of Thimerosal has been banned since 1993.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7076/ [newscientist.com]

Re:Big deal

[Rei]

There is a lot, and I mean a *lot* of misinformation on YouTube. The Mythbusters forum gets posts every day from people who just saw a new way to "burn water" on YouTube and who are furious that we're still burning gasoline in our cars; people who saw that you can power your average TV by just wiring it up to a couple double-A batteries and believed it; and on, and on, and on. It's really bad. I'm starting to get a handle on just how gullible the average person is by looking at how readily people fall for these hoaxes.

Re:Funny you mention this

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

ON my medical application, I coined the new word "Google-gnosis" describing the problem with people self-diagnosing based on information found on the internet, making the point that Doctors are now going to have to make more of an effort to know what information and misinformation is out there, and how Doctors are going to have to spend more time teaching people correct information to dispel popular myths that get spread around.

Sadly the verdict is still out on whether or not taking the first Google result is significantly less accurate than going to the doctor, and doctors are increasingly turning to Google themselves to help diagnose patients. The last study I saw placed Google's accuracy at about 65% and doctors at 69% for a first diagnosis. As someone who has spent much of the last year going to what are supposedly some of the better hospitals in the nation with little luck, my faith in the medical community is pretty much obliterated. Most any rational person would turn to Google and research their symptoms and possible diagnosis. The sad part is when you go back to the doctor and realize they spent half an hour reading one of the many articles you did and they are unable to answer any additional questions and don't even know some of the information you do. Taking a look at studies of how long it takes to be properly diagnosed if you have anything unusual (several years of seeing doctors) is just depressing.

Personally, I wish doctors would ignore what information their patient knows or thinks they know, but I sure wish they'd do some research themselves and actually have a fucking clue what they're talking about after you spend a week playing phone tag while violently ill, only to find out they haven't bothered to do their homework on your condition.

Re:Big deal

[SL Baur]

The California Department of Motor Vehicles has its own YouTube channel with over 17k subscribers.

I have no idea what that means, though I've watched YouTube videos before (usually linked from elsewhere). Whatever.

I do know that my youngest son who has been receiving lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of shots from doctors just keeps getting sicker. He tends to be sicker after getting shots than before. And what about all the ladies (never men) who have vaccine scars on their arms everywhere you look in the Philippines?

I had a bad reaction myself to the last vaccine I got in high school.

Side-effects matter.

I'm prepared to believe that there's some truth in those videos. I wish to God for the sake of my son's life I could figure out where it is.

Re:Big deal

[randyest]

I'm with you on the freedom of speech thing there. In fact, I'd like you to feel free to clarify and back up your claim that "A growing number of pediatricians have apprehension about vaccinations due to complications." What is the number now, as a percentage of all pediatricians? What information can you provide about the credentials and credibility of these pediatricians? What is the actual growth rate?

I'm seriously interested.

Re:Big deal

[timster]

I think the problem with this theory is that vaccinations are just about the least profitable segment of the drug market. This is why the drug companies do such a great job convincing us that we need their latest heartburn remedy, and zero dollars communicating the benefits of vaccinations.

If someone takes your heartburn pill once a day you can make $1500 off them over a ten-year period, easy. Nobody will pay $1500 for a vaccine.

Re:Big deal

[Lars T.]

I think this begs a larger question. Are people really using YouTube as an authoritative source of information for ANYTHING???

Hey, some even use Fox News for that.

Re:DIGG effect much better than Slashdot ...

[dubbreak]

It only takes one such moderator to bury a post on Slashdot...With Digg, it takes quite a few negative impressions to get a post buried.

I'm sure that's your excuse for all the troll and flamebait moderations you have received [slashdot.org]. Meta moderation is supposed to fix and prevent illegitimate down mods, and it seems to work for the most part. I have been modded down before for disagreeing with someone and later have popped up to a +4.

I wasn't talking about stuff being pushed down in my parent post, but I'm glad to discuss that as well. In my experience one down thumb on a DIGG post and it doesn't get viewed again, hence it never gets any more diggs. Same as your Slashdot theory which ignores meta moderation and the various ways of moderating a post. Also in my experience any amount of disagreement with a poster or the group thought and you get dugg down. There is no meeting of the minds where opposing views can have equal status, it's just, "I'm cooler than you. I gots more thummzz."

The whole thumbs up thumbs down thing just invites knee-jerk reactions. How often do you think someone thinks to themselves, "Man I disagree with that." and gives a thumb down vs, "Man I disagree with that, but there are some valid points and it was well thought out." and gives a thumbs up?

Don't get me wrong I don't hate Digg. As it's been said by others: I read Digg for the stories and slashdot for the comments. Although I have been visiting Digg less and less lately.

Re:Funny you mention this

[zstlaw]

Actually there is a difference between what you can access and what documents a really good doctor has available.

Recently a close relative was diagnosed with stage IV medullary thyroid cancer. According to everything I could find (using only medical sites) his outlook was 100% mortality within 5 years.

My sister works at a hospital and had access to journals that cost several-thousand per year (according to her) and she saw treatments that raised his life expectancy to 5 years with a 10 year cap on life expectancy.

We went to the best thyroid surgeon we could find. He actually knew the doctor who had written the papers my sister had found as they attended the same conferences. Furthermore he had access to follow up studies detailing promising treatment plans that actually gave a 5% possibility of being completely cured. Now my relative was not 100% cured -- but I would put his life expectancy up in the 10 years category so he has 2 times longer to live than anyone could have expected and he might live even longer than that.

So basically each tier we went up the studies were more relevant and contained newer treatments. We were all reading articles by the same doctors, but my sister had access to newer data, and the expert knew what the study author was doing today.

On one last note. It is worth noting that medullary thyroid cancer is hard to diagnose and the local doctors misdiagnosed it several times. My relative self-diagnosed it online and paid for the additional tests (which are not normally performed in the US) to prove that he had the rare, almost untreatable version of the disease. But he also became despondent because he _knew_ he had only a year or two to live from the same documentation I found. It was only the expert in the field that knew of any way to potentially cure him.

So the web can help you look up possibilities. But the data you see and the treatments are quite old. When I have symptoms I go online to look up common maladies and when I go in to my doctor I tell her what I researched already to save her time. Often times she can dismiss a couple options quickly, but several times it has been quite useful. If my relative had not done the same, I wouldn't be visiting him this Christmas as he would be dead.

Several doctors had misdiagnosed the type of cancer, and even at Mayo several residents were shocked that the patient had gotten the diagnosis as none of the residents had gotten it right on the walk-through session. So doing self-diagnosis might help, but even with the right knowledge and education the residents and local doctors were wrong. The patient has a more time and interest to look at every possible option while the doctor has several people he needs to see today so they tend to lean towards common maladies as they are just more likely to be right.

No Surprise

[wolff000]

Stupid people say stupid things it is as simple as that. What we need to do is educate the young and hopefully they will be able to tell what their parents are saying is wrong. We don't teach any where near enough science in the states.

Public Health

[gizmo_mathboy]

The group does better when all of it's members are vaccinated. There might be individual cases where the vaccinations *might* be harmful to the individual.

It would be interesting to compare the rate at which individuals are being verifiably harmed by a vaccination versus the chance of catching the disease.

I have been vaccinating my kids but I'm trying to spread the shots out over time, making sure that there is no thimerosal being used and generally looking at alternative vaccination schedules (from places like Canada and Scandinavia).

It's one thing to engage in a behaviour that is self-destructive and yet another that can be group destructive.

Science Fact or Fiction?

[moogyboog]

"It was not the church but also the established astronomers of the time that condemned Galileo. The majority of physicists rejected Einsteins Special Relativity Theory in 1905. Einstein himself would not accept anything in Quantum Theory after 1920 no matter how many experiments supported it. Edisons commitment to Direct Current electrical generators led him to insist Alternating Current generators were unsafe for years after their saftey had been proven to everyone else." - RAW "Prometheus Rising It's very hard for people involved in science to accept the reality that maybe a cherished theory could be wrong, just the same as with a Religious Fundamentalist, in fact the two have some strange similarities to one another when one delves into their so called "laws" or "truths". I find Science to be just as limiting as faith, slightly less insane but insane for reasons other than "faith". If one may be so compelled to believe only what one views in front of their eyes, data graphs, telescopes, microscopes, and various other instruments, then one has taken in a kind of faith in not just the the technology being used but other's eyes, or in the individual's case their own eyes. Just because you can't measure something or view it with your eyes doesn't mean it theoretically can't exist. A UFO or UMO(unidentified moving ground object) occur almost indefinitely on a regular basis, I'm sure all of you can be mistaken from time to time via your own perception of reality, does that mean that you didn't see what you thought you did? I don't know. How rare the sound of those three words in the mouths of a fairly egotistical religious or political or scientific person. We often embrace logo's, figures, organizations, heirarchy, beliefs, theories, specualtions, without much thought as to there actual probability of their actual existence in reality. Much of what passes for education in public schools amounts to commandments to respect your teacher, school, government, church, corporations and parents unflinchingly, and we are somehow shocked that people would say "no thanks" your all unworth my energy and time, leave me alone. Oh, but that means the person has a problem or is ignorant or something according to those that have to define everything in existence, catagorize, classify, compartmentalize and structure existence into something that can be understood in their own nervous system to be "reality". Sorry, I guess we offended your nervous system by not placing you above us in the heirarchy of power. Sometimes people use Science, Religion and Politics as a will to power(Nietsche), over others, sometimes others try to warn of this abuse of power and it's relation to your position or punishment in life(Foucault). The better observation would be to propose that maybe vaccines cause autism or maybe they don't, maybe mercury is toxic, maybe it's harmless, maybe some people have problems with Aids vaccines that increase propensity for acquiring HIV or maybe Bayer Asperin gave tablets with HIV to people in western Europe which caused many to lose jobs and go to jail while excutives that authorized the sale in the US suffer no consequences, maybe somebody that put forth the time to get a PHD in health could be on to something about vaccinations not being needed in such great quantity, maybe we should just create and inject vaccines into people focibly as in Prince Georges MD. Ivan Illich wrote a book called "Limits to medicine" many of you should try to find in your library and also another called "Deschooling Society". In some ways we now have a new Inquistion and it's aimed at the throat of challengers to the status quo, in the same way incumbents go after a challenger in politics, many vested interests play a part, and information may be censored through the use of extended copyright creating a "Intellectual Feudalism" as another writer put it so succintly, if not brought to the people's attention, we could very well have as we do today the technology to advance consciousness but yet sit at the feet of a "scientific oligarch" unwilling t

Problem solved

[definate]

And so I'm waiting for the part where the medical profession realizes this, and then doctors/hospitals/etc start providing accurate information by qualified professionals on YouTube as a form of free advertising.

Stupid people lead the way on spreading FUD, but rational people follow when it garners enough attention.

AMA

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if the AMA were a reputable source of information instead of a corporation to make doctors richer I'd listen or care what the AMA has to say. But hey, it's free speech for them and for Youtube.

Another piece of anecdotal evidence

[benhocking]

I know a mother who has 2 children. The first child got immunized, and shortly thereafter was diagnosed with autism. The second child was not immunized, and shortly after the time he would have been immunized, he was diagnosed with autism. She still insists that the first child's immunizations led to that child developing autism.

Re:Meh.

[brantondaveperson]

5) Chicken pox is extremely unpleasant.

It most certainly is. My three young children all had it, for about a month all up. They're scarred all over from it (I mean, it's not smallpox, but it's still scarring), and during that month they were extremely unwell and in quite considerable pain.

Bottom line: Vaccination is of extraordinary importance, and if enough people decide to opt out of it we will be looking at fresh epidemics of all those appalling childhood diseases with all their associated complications. It would not be a pretty sight, and we owe it to public health at large to vaccinate our children. Put simply, it is The Right Thing To Do.