or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › On Twitter, Anti-Vaccination Sentiments Spread More Easily Than Pro-Vaccination Sentiments
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

On Twitter, Anti-Vaccination Sentiments Spread More Easily Than Pro-Vaccination Sentiments - Page 3

post #41 of 58

It just isn't tho. The accurate title is 'CDC Researchers find that Autism Rates are not increased by too many Polysaccharides & Proteins (Antigens) too soon'

 

Is this a means/end discussion? Since Vaxes are super great, it is okay to distort information in the media if the end result is increased compliance in the public?

post #42 of 58
Yours is more detailed but the headline as is is accurate. It's not ok to distort information, but that's not what's happening. You seriously think USA today is going to write a headline with the word polysaccharide in it?
post #43 of 58

Even "antigens" is going to be too much for a headline in a mainstream outlet! 

 

Headlines can be misleading, but that's true in so many areas.

 

 I think anyone who reads some kind of huge bias/conspiracy into the headlines of how studies related to immunizations are written may want to think about their own bias in how they read stuff on the internet. 

post #44 of 58

They could have used 'Antigen' in that beacon of Journalism. ;) Using 'vaccines' is inaccurate because there never ever has been a vaccine that was purely Antigen and the Adjuvants are also 'active ingredients'. But it wasn't just Saturday Morning Fluff like USA Today, it was 'respected' outlets like NPR, NBC, etc.

 

This is a subjective matter. I believe the Media systematically distorts vaccine information to increase vaccine compliance (from a gov angle) and increase pharma sales (from a Corporate angle). It isn't really far fetched, as most of these publications take AMPLE money from Pharma advertising AND the Gov does have an overt agenda of increasing compliance via the media as stated by Kathleen S. & others.

 

I mean we needn't even bring up the whole Brian Deer debacle for this, but I can go there if you want!

 

But it is fundamentally a subjective, opinion matter on which we can agree to disagree. I believe, based on *evidence* and college level writing classes and years of observation, that it is happening. You are entitled to believe that the media is reporting this issue accurately. But I will stand by the idea that the public is not coming away with accurate info . . . 

 

I mean the real question is: is it wrong to increase compliance by distorting information in the media. Are the people not smart enough to deserve informed consent? Or are they just too easily influenced on this issue, which is too important not to spin in a positive PR sort of way?

post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post
 I believe the Media systematically distorts vaccine information to increase vaccine compliance (from a gov angle) and increase pharma sales (from a Corporate angle). It isn't really far fetched, as most of these publications take AMPLE money from Pharma advertising AND the Gov does have an overt agenda of increasing compliance as stated by Kathleen S. & others.

 

Yes!

post #46 of 58
Of course te wrong to distort information, but that's not what this is. Te study is about too many too soon AS QUANTIFIED BY ANTIGENS. I'm so sick of hearing about this. You have to quantify it somehow. This is one way. Is it perfect? No. Is it the only way? No. Is it a legitimate way? Yes. There is no one perfect study.
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 I think anyone who reads some kind of huge bias/conspiracy into the headlines of how studies related to immunizations are written....

Nice play of the conspiracy theorist card. You might sound more credible if you wait until someone does say something conspiracy worthy, instead of throwing that out because people are justifyably concerned over jumping-to-conclusion headlines.

 

It is reasonable to expect headlines that don't misinform.  I think the title writers are capable of it. 

 

Sloppy headlines hurt pro-vaxxing more than non-vaxxers, anyways.  How do you think people feel when the read a headline that says one thing and the text says another (and then the study says yet another)?  Distrustful, confused, cynical.  People rely on media to disseminate information - it would be useful if we could rely on them to do it properly.


Edited by kathymuggle - 4/8/13 at 8:40am
post #48 of 58
I think most people find that headline a reasonable representation of the study.
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think most people find that headline a reasonable representation of the study.

 

Yeah that was my point. I wasn't trying to play any cards.... 

post #50 of 58
Thread Starter 

http://www.fiercevaccines.com/story/negative-vaccine-views-spread-viruses-twitter/2013-04-10

here's the paper (pdf)
- see the PLoS blog

Read more: Negative vaccine views spread like viruses on Twitter - FierceVaccines http://www.fiercevaccines.com/story/negative-vaccine-views-spread-viruses-twitter/2013-04-10#ixzz2QFa9sKcu 
 

post #51 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think most people find that headline a reasonable representation of the study.

I don't know how you could possibly know that or think that??? 

post #52 of 58
Marnica - I think we have to agree here that we often find other people's views on these threads hard to understand, but we have to respect them anyway.
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I think we have to agree here that we often find other people's views on these threads hard to understand, but we have to respect them anyway.

 

 

There is no logical way Rachel can know if "most people find that representation a reasonable representation of the study"  (her words)

 

Has Rachel quizzed most people? Very highly doubtful.

 

It would even be a stretch to assume most people find the titles reasonable representation of the studies.  Both the antigen and twitter study have serious issues with their titles.  It would be like studying cornmeal in crackers and declaring crackers safe (never mind the other ingredients) or saying anti-ritz cracker sentiment was the same as anti-cracker sentiment….

post #54 of 58

Actually, I think Rrrrrachel is correct, but not in the way she means.

 

Yes, "most people would find that headline a reasonable representation of the study," because most people would not bother to actually read the study.

 

Not even doctors read these studies.  They don't have time.  They read the headlines, the snippets (carefully) selected (i.e., cherry-picked) for them in their newsletters from the pharmaceutical industry, and from the pharma-funded continuing medical education journals.  It's very rare for them to even read the abstracts, because they simply don't have time.  

 

If I didn't know better, from my years of research, and from my having actually READ the study, I would have thought it was a reasonable representation of the study, too.

 

Thankfully, I bothered to read it, and I can see just how many lies are contained in that headline.  No matter what most people think.

 

There have been an awful lot of issues in history that "most people" found perfectly reasonable--until enough people fought back.  Luckily, enough of us are starting to fight back to counteract that destructive philosophy.

post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Marnica - I think we have to agree here that we often find other people's views on these threads hard to understand, but we have to respect them anyway.

This has nothing to do with respecting Rrrrachel's views. She is free to feel however she wants to. I was responding to her assumption that "most people" feel a certain way about a newspaper headline. As Kathy pointed out - there is no logical way she could know that. That was my point. 

post #56 of 58
Wow. So many reactions to my saying what I THINK. Yet someone's statement about how headlines like this surely turn people against vaccination makes just as many assumptions, but doesn't get challenged. Interesting.
post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Wow. So many reactions to my saying what I THINK. Yet someone's statement about how headlines like this surely turn people against vaccination makes just as many assumptions, but doesn't get challenged. Interesting.

I don't think it's the same at all - but ok

post #58 of 58
You're right. Just two people drawing conclusions about what people might think based on a headline. Totally different. Not a bit the same. What was I thinking.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › On Twitter, Anti-Vaccination Sentiments Spread More Easily Than Pro-Vaccination Sentiments