http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/vaccination-debate/New research may explain how the anti-vaccination movement persists in the face of growing outrage and established science
America prefers to get its vital facts about vaccines from anonymous website commenters over the CDC.
As the vaccination wars continue to escalate, a new study suggests that trusted doctors and experts may be no match for the loud and often inaccurate wisdom of Internet commenters.
In a first-of-its kind experiment, researchers at Washington State University have shown that people tend to be persuaded less by credible pro- and anti-vaccination information published online than by individual users who hang around in comments threads on the topic kicking up dust.
The findings, which will appear in an upcoming Journal of Advertising, underscore the powerful influence of information disseminated by word of mouth. Moreover, they offer a striking insight into the ability of the anti-vaccination movement to flourish despite mounting outrage and overwhelming scientific evidence that supports vaccination.
For the study, “Reexamining Health Messages in the Digital Age: A Fresh Look at Source Credibility Effects,” researchers conducted a pair of experiments with 129 participants. In the first experiment, the study’s subjects were shown two mock public service announcements, one that purported to be a pro-vaccination message sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the other an anti-vaccination message from the National Vaccine Information Center. They were then shown a series of fictitious online comments that appeared to be in response to the official messages. The participants were given no information at all about the commenters.
After reviewing the PSAs and comments, the participants completed a questionnaire about their opinions on vaccination. To their surprise, the researchers found that the participants were as persuaded by the commenters as they were by the PSAs, even though they had no knowledge of commenters’ background or expertise.
“That kind of blew us away,” says Ioannis Kareklas, the study’s lead author. “People were trusting the random online commenters just as much as the PSA itself.”
In the second experiment, participants were told that the fictitious commenters were a student of literature, a health care lobbyist and a doctor who specialized in infectious diseases. This time, participants were more persuaded by the bogus doctor than the PSAs, even though nothing about the physician or his claims could be verified.
A copy of the study can be downloaded here.
People Prefer Vaccination Advice From Random Internet Commenters (Rather Than, Say, Experts)
- Thread starter CHL
- Start date
I can just imagine thekingstroll searching the comments section of conspiracy theorists videos for "gems" and "insight""I'm bout to eat outchea!"-thekingsmen
BlaKcMoney
Hijo Del Ray
vaccines are toxic and unnecessary according to experts, not just internet comments.
Yapdatfool
Superstar
Fwiw, got the flu vaccine this year and did not get the flu.
Didn't get the flu vaccine in previous years and did not get the flu
.
Didn't get the flu vaccine in previous years and did not get the flu
.
Brown_Pride
All Star
Fwiw, got the flu vaccine this year and did not get the flu.
Didn't get the flu vaccine in previous years and did not get the flu
Links?
Yapdatfool
Superstar
At least the vaccine didn't give me the flu, one common misconception of the vaccine. My doc however told me it wouldn't even protect from the current bad flu strains due to mutation.
BlaKcMoney
Hijo Del Ray
http://vactruth.com/2014/01/28/toxic-levels-of-aluminum/
A recent study conducted by Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic revealed that the more vaccines that children receive containing the adjuvant aluminum, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems in the future.
In 2013, in their paper, published by Springer Science+Business Media, titledAluminum in the Central Nervous System: Toxicity in Humans and Animals, Vaccine Adjuvants, and Autoimmunity, they revealed that during a 17-year period, the rates of autism had increased significantly in countries that had the most vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminum.
A Highly Significant Correlation
The researchers compared the number of vaccines recommend by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the period from 1991 – 2008 and the changes in the autism rates during the same period. They wrote:
“The data sets, graphed against each other, show a pronounced and statistically highly significant correlation between the number vaccines with aluminum and the changes in autism rates. Further data showed that a significant correlation exists between the amounts of aluminum given to preschool children and the current rates of autism in seven Western countries.Those countries with the highest level of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines had the highest autism rates.” [1] (own emphasis)
BlaKcMoney
Hijo Del Ray
edited
Last edited:
BlaKcMoney
Hijo Del Ray
"It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many histories of littlechildren who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn't put my finger onthe disease they have. They just weren't strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since. "---Dr. William Howard Hay
http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/40Reasons.htm
http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/40Reasons.htm
Shaw and Tomljenovic ? Vactruth ? :hum:
BlaKcMoney
Hijo Del Ray
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/dr...n-son-and-any-future-kids-my-wife-and-i-have/
Dr.Kurt Perkins
VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION:
Clarification needs to be created regarding VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION. I’m all for immunization. The problem created by media and pharmaceutical influence is that people equate immunization with vaccination. Vaccination is simply injecting something into your body. This does not create immunity for your body. These are 2 totally separate entities.
Another thing that irks me is my ‘mom’s’ comments about me leaving out stuff and therefore destroying my credibility. I would like to add I make ZERO money off of this blog. I may book some speaking gigs from it but those revenues will come nowhere near the $20 BILLION per year the makers of vaccines cherish. Who do you think has more weight on their shoulders to hide information? Huh, mom? Huh?
With building immunity, it’s a natural process. With that natural process, your body uses many defenses. The first layer of defense is your skin. This blocks out any harmful opportunistic buggers. With a vaccine, this law of nature is totally bypassed by injecting you with a needle full of stuff your skin would never allow past it.
You also have a respiratory system that also aids in defense. You cough, you sneeze, and you blow your nose, in attempt to expel the potential invader. Coughing, sneezing, and snorting are results of your immune system working. Don’t suppress it with fever reducers, anti-histamines, etc. You’re just making it easier for the invader.
You also have your gut-associated lymph system to fight with the stronger stuff. If your system is so deficient to get past these natural defenses, the potential invader, live or dead, enters the blood stream. Once something is in your blood stream, it can be transported any anywhere in your body, not good at all. It’s like open bar at a chiropractic convention.
A vaccine violates all laws of natural immune defenses by taking a potential pathogen along with all the TOXIC ingredients(aluminum, formaldehyde, adjuvants, etc) directly into your blood system. This process would never occur in building natural immunity. That last sentence is kind of an oxy-moron. Immunity is a natural thing. Vaccines are an artificial thing.
FLAWED RESEARCH:
The scientific mantra of vaccines is that they are safe and effective based on their research. Their research is flawed and is a double standard from any other drug product studied. The Gold Standard in research design is the double blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT).
This means that people are split into 2 groups randomly and participants are given either the real thing or the fake thing being tested. Then progress is charted on who gets better, who gets worse, and the like. In theory there should be no bias as to reporting because the researchers don’t know who is in the placebo or the real intervention group.
How many vaccines have ever been studied in this manner? ZERO! The reason? The researchers will say they cannot perform an RCT because it would be unethical to NOT give a child a vaccine because if that child dies of something that could have been prevented, then they don’t want to be responsible. But if someone dies in their trials from taking their anti-depressants, it must be OK.
Hey drug companies, I will volunteer my child to be in the placebo group and compare him to the health and well being of those that have gotten all the recommended vaccines. I’m sure I can gather a few hundred thousand more to be in the placebo group to create a large sample.
Instead of research to see safety and effectiveness, they instead see if the person builds anti-bodies to the antigen (the foreign invader) that is in the vaccine. If antibodies are built, then it’s ‘safe and effective,’ or so they lead us to believe. These studies are rarely, if ever done on kids younger than 4 years old. How can you say it’s safe or effective for a baby if it’s never studied on a baby?
The 2 populations that have limited production of anti-bodies are infants and geriatrics, the 2 most heavily vaccinated populations. If they can’t produce anti-bodies, then the vaccine would be pointless. The whole premise of the vaccine is that you get injected with a foreign invader and you produce anti-bodies against it. If you can’t produce anti-bodies well then what’s the use of injecting something to try and stimulate that reaction?
With kids, they don’t produce any anybodies until after age 6 months. So why give a vaccine to anyone under the age of 6 months if they can’t produce antibodies. Even if the whole vaccine theory really worked, it would be absolutely pointless to inject a baby of 6 months or less with a vaccine . With a child’s immune system being very immature until age 2, the overload of 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months seems about as logical as drinking from a fire hydrant.
BOOSTER BUST:
This is another aspect to the junk science of vaccines that exposes kids only 18 months old to 36 shots. In their research of efficacy (how long something will work), they have no idea. For this reason, we have multiple shots for multiple antigens. Just take the latest HPV vaccine, the 3 series shot given to 12 year old girls to prevent HPV (an STD) which “MIGHT” but has never been confirmed, contribute to cervical cancer.
The manufacturer is only claiming 5 years of efficacy. The problem with this is 2 fold. 1. The average age of cervical cancer is 50. 2. The shot is administered to 12 year old girls.
So we have a system pushing multiple shots (boosters) with a supposed 5 year efficacy timeline onto pre-teen girls, that was never tested on them, for a disease that has an average age of 50. You give it a 12 year old and by the time she’s 17 the effects are worn off and then you claim you can prevent cervical cancer as they get older. And I’m the quack for speaking out against vaccines.
So what are the efficacy rates of other vaccines? Who knows? They don’t study that, they assume and say we need more. Once the vaccine is FDA approved and on the market, there’s no need to put any more money into it to study the effects. Instead, we have a test tube of 4 million new subjects each and every year where they can just sit back, relax and never worry about a law suit because the government has protected them from any and all liability.
Since no studies go into how long the vaccine would last, then there can be an endless recommendation of potential booster shots. The part that really confuses me are the shots that are 4 part series. If the first 3 didn’t confirm immunity, how do we know that the last shot was ‘the one’ that provides lifetime immunity? Why would the 2nd to last shot be good for only a year but the last one be good for an entire lifetime? That’s pretty arrogant and sketchy logic.
POLIO PUSHERS:
If I were to ask you what polio looks like, you probably have images of wheel chairs, crutches and kids limping around. You would be absolutely correct…less than 0.5-2% of the time. I want to make it clear that I am not downplaying the devastation of that 2%. The point I’m making, hopefully it’s clear enough, is that I am making decisions based on statistics not emotion. As a parent, it’s very hard to separate the two sometimes.
In over 95% of the time, polio presents with the following symptoms: slight fever, malaise, headache, sore throat, and vomiting. These start 3-5 days after exposure and recovery is 24-72 hours with a result of lifetime immunity. Bet you never heard that from your pharma influenced media or doctor?
In fact, if you went to your doctor with those symptoms and you were told you had polio, you would leave his office laughing and write bad reviews on his Google Places page.
The remaining 3% was non-paralytic polio. This presented for 2-10 days as high fever, severe headache, stiff neck, hyperesthesia/paresthesia in extremities and some asymmetrical limb weakness. Take this list of symptoms to your doctor and you will probably get a label of meningitis, not polio.
But Dr. Kurt, the vaccine saved all those people from getting the paralyzing version. If you look at the charts below, you will see that Polio was already massively decreasing prior to any vaccine ever introduced. I would also like to add that the highest incidence came at a time our country was in despair (poor sanitation, hygiene, nutrition) during the depression.
- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/dr...kids-my-wife-and-i-have/#sthash.oEG0NAdw.dpuf
Dr.Kurt Perkins
VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION:
Clarification needs to be created regarding VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION. I’m all for immunization. The problem created by media and pharmaceutical influence is that people equate immunization with vaccination. Vaccination is simply injecting something into your body. This does not create immunity for your body. These are 2 totally separate entities.
Another thing that irks me is my ‘mom’s’ comments about me leaving out stuff and therefore destroying my credibility. I would like to add I make ZERO money off of this blog. I may book some speaking gigs from it but those revenues will come nowhere near the $20 BILLION per year the makers of vaccines cherish. Who do you think has more weight on their shoulders to hide information? Huh, mom? Huh?
With building immunity, it’s a natural process. With that natural process, your body uses many defenses. The first layer of defense is your skin. This blocks out any harmful opportunistic buggers. With a vaccine, this law of nature is totally bypassed by injecting you with a needle full of stuff your skin would never allow past it.
You also have a respiratory system that also aids in defense. You cough, you sneeze, and you blow your nose, in attempt to expel the potential invader. Coughing, sneezing, and snorting are results of your immune system working. Don’t suppress it with fever reducers, anti-histamines, etc. You’re just making it easier for the invader.
You also have your gut-associated lymph system to fight with the stronger stuff. If your system is so deficient to get past these natural defenses, the potential invader, live or dead, enters the blood stream. Once something is in your blood stream, it can be transported any anywhere in your body, not good at all. It’s like open bar at a chiropractic convention.
A vaccine violates all laws of natural immune defenses by taking a potential pathogen along with all the TOXIC ingredients(aluminum, formaldehyde, adjuvants, etc) directly into your blood system. This process would never occur in building natural immunity. That last sentence is kind of an oxy-moron. Immunity is a natural thing. Vaccines are an artificial thing.
FLAWED RESEARCH:
The scientific mantra of vaccines is that they are safe and effective based on their research. Their research is flawed and is a double standard from any other drug product studied. The Gold Standard in research design is the double blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT).
This means that people are split into 2 groups randomly and participants are given either the real thing or the fake thing being tested. Then progress is charted on who gets better, who gets worse, and the like. In theory there should be no bias as to reporting because the researchers don’t know who is in the placebo or the real intervention group.
How many vaccines have ever been studied in this manner? ZERO! The reason? The researchers will say they cannot perform an RCT because it would be unethical to NOT give a child a vaccine because if that child dies of something that could have been prevented, then they don’t want to be responsible. But if someone dies in their trials from taking their anti-depressants, it must be OK.
Hey drug companies, I will volunteer my child to be in the placebo group and compare him to the health and well being of those that have gotten all the recommended vaccines. I’m sure I can gather a few hundred thousand more to be in the placebo group to create a large sample.
Instead of research to see safety and effectiveness, they instead see if the person builds anti-bodies to the antigen (the foreign invader) that is in the vaccine. If antibodies are built, then it’s ‘safe and effective,’ or so they lead us to believe. These studies are rarely, if ever done on kids younger than 4 years old. How can you say it’s safe or effective for a baby if it’s never studied on a baby?
The 2 populations that have limited production of anti-bodies are infants and geriatrics, the 2 most heavily vaccinated populations. If they can’t produce anti-bodies, then the vaccine would be pointless. The whole premise of the vaccine is that you get injected with a foreign invader and you produce anti-bodies against it. If you can’t produce anti-bodies well then what’s the use of injecting something to try and stimulate that reaction?
With kids, they don’t produce any anybodies until after age 6 months. So why give a vaccine to anyone under the age of 6 months if they can’t produce antibodies. Even if the whole vaccine theory really worked, it would be absolutely pointless to inject a baby of 6 months or less with a vaccine . With a child’s immune system being very immature until age 2, the overload of 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months seems about as logical as drinking from a fire hydrant.
BOOSTER BUST:
This is another aspect to the junk science of vaccines that exposes kids only 18 months old to 36 shots. In their research of efficacy (how long something will work), they have no idea. For this reason, we have multiple shots for multiple antigens. Just take the latest HPV vaccine, the 3 series shot given to 12 year old girls to prevent HPV (an STD) which “MIGHT” but has never been confirmed, contribute to cervical cancer.
The manufacturer is only claiming 5 years of efficacy. The problem with this is 2 fold. 1. The average age of cervical cancer is 50. 2. The shot is administered to 12 year old girls.
So we have a system pushing multiple shots (boosters) with a supposed 5 year efficacy timeline onto pre-teen girls, that was never tested on them, for a disease that has an average age of 50. You give it a 12 year old and by the time she’s 17 the effects are worn off and then you claim you can prevent cervical cancer as they get older. And I’m the quack for speaking out against vaccines.
So what are the efficacy rates of other vaccines? Who knows? They don’t study that, they assume and say we need more. Once the vaccine is FDA approved and on the market, there’s no need to put any more money into it to study the effects. Instead, we have a test tube of 4 million new subjects each and every year where they can just sit back, relax and never worry about a law suit because the government has protected them from any and all liability.
Since no studies go into how long the vaccine would last, then there can be an endless recommendation of potential booster shots. The part that really confuses me are the shots that are 4 part series. If the first 3 didn’t confirm immunity, how do we know that the last shot was ‘the one’ that provides lifetime immunity? Why would the 2nd to last shot be good for only a year but the last one be good for an entire lifetime? That’s pretty arrogant and sketchy logic.
POLIO PUSHERS:
If I were to ask you what polio looks like, you probably have images of wheel chairs, crutches and kids limping around. You would be absolutely correct…less than 0.5-2% of the time. I want to make it clear that I am not downplaying the devastation of that 2%. The point I’m making, hopefully it’s clear enough, is that I am making decisions based on statistics not emotion. As a parent, it’s very hard to separate the two sometimes.
In over 95% of the time, polio presents with the following symptoms: slight fever, malaise, headache, sore throat, and vomiting. These start 3-5 days after exposure and recovery is 24-72 hours with a result of lifetime immunity. Bet you never heard that from your pharma influenced media or doctor?
In fact, if you went to your doctor with those symptoms and you were told you had polio, you would leave his office laughing and write bad reviews on his Google Places page.
The remaining 3% was non-paralytic polio. This presented for 2-10 days as high fever, severe headache, stiff neck, hyperesthesia/paresthesia in extremities and some asymmetrical limb weakness. Take this list of symptoms to your doctor and you will probably get a label of meningitis, not polio.
But Dr. Kurt, the vaccine saved all those people from getting the paralyzing version. If you look at the charts below, you will see that Polio was already massively decreasing prior to any vaccine ever introduced. I would also like to add that the highest incidence came at a time our country was in despair (poor sanitation, hygiene, nutrition) during the depression.
- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/dr...kids-my-wife-and-i-have/#sthash.oEG0NAdw.dpuf