Thanks, anti-vax movement...


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

Reflecting on a few of my previous lives....a big argument was made by the anti-semetic crowds, claiming it was the work of the "evil jews" and "ZOG" (Zionist Oppresive Government).  What I started seeing bothered me- no verification of the "sources" that were telling of these so-called conspiracies to destroy white man/America.  As if they really cared about America in the beginning (man, I'm telling you guys all these hints about all these long boring stories....), they would research their sources.  Verify the reports.  Instead all of these "clandestine missions", "unnamed sources" that were afraid for their lives, and blah blah blah.  And then they'd bring up how the Jews are working with (insert government agency) on taking over America and the "Agenda 21" (which I know exists, but not like they claim) and putting Americans in concentration camps and this, and then that, and then...oh boy.  But the thing is...IF they paid any attention to the real numbers and what they said...that means a lot. 

Ok, let's look at 3%.  Let us pretend that measles is rampant, and it is projected that 10,000,000 people have been infected.  But not all of the ten mil. have been vaccinated.  Let's pretend 15% are not vaccinated.  That means 1,500,000 are not vaccinated.  That leaves 8,500,000 that are.  Then the 3% of that, or 255,000 risk getting sick because their vaccination ain't gonna work.  So we're looking at 1,755,000 that will get sick.  Now let's focus on the known death rate for measles.  1:100 in poor 3rd world nations up to 1:5000 in wealthier/healthier 1st world countries. (source: http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/measles)  So we're projecting 350-ish up to 17,550 deaths.  U.S. numbers are a bit different.  1:500 (3510:1,7550,000) to 1:1000 (1755:1,755,000).  (source: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatsslideset.pdf)

But let us twist this around and say 50% are not vaccinated.  Grab a calculator and play with it yourselves.  The numbers are not pretty.  These numbers I consider factual.  The garbage the (what should I call them?) groups have, are garbage because they have nothing to back them up with.  Then there are the bits that these groups missed.  The most common health issues include ear infections and diarrhea.  Ear infections averaging 1:10 in kids and can result in permanent hearing loss.  Diarrhea as well, (less than 1:10 infected).  The worse include pneumonia & encephalitis.  According to the source (https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatsslideset.pdf) "As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children...About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis...that can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability."

The worse long-term complication being "Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis...a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life. SSPE generally develops 7 to 10 years after a person has measles, even though the person seems to have fully recovered from the illness. Since measles was eliminated in 2000, SSPE is rarely reported in the United States."

Go over the sources, verify the data, play with the numbers with a calculator (unless you can do this in your head like MormonGator does) and you'll see that 3% is very small.  IMO it's a risk worth taking.  Getting a vaccination that has a 97% chance of keeping me from getting something serious like measles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
On 3/11/2019 at 1:01 AM, pwrfrk said:

Go over the sources, verify the data, play with the numbers with a calculator (unless you can do this in your head like MormonGator does)

I can also juggle live chickens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 hours ago, Fether said:

I think I found my next dog’s name 

That's awesome. My new dog is named Clarice! 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2019 at 4:47 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Youtube is also removing or demonitizing anti-vax channels.

Netflix is also removing harmful anti-vax propaganda disguised as legit documentaries.

I am happy.  A wave of sanity, common sense, and corporate responsibility is sweeping the world.

Facebook announces plans to block anti-vaccination content

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-announces-plans-to-block-anti-vaccination-content/

 

Amazon removes books promoting autism "cures" and vaccine misinformation

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-removes-books-promoting-autism-cures-and-vaccine-misinformation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I am happy.  A wave of sanity, common sense, and corporate responsibility is sweeping the world.

Facebook announces plans to block anti-vaccination content

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-announces-plans-to-block-anti-vaccination-content/

 

Amazon removes books promoting autism "cures" and vaccine misinformation

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-removes-books-promoting-autism-cures-and-vaccine-misinformation/

I am not happy.  CENSORSHIP IS NEVER THE ANSWER.  You now have BIG TECH deciding what is "safe information" and "unsafe information" in a world where communication is starting to be ruled by the techno giants.  Boooo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self-censorship is absolutely the answer.  You can always find people willing to sell you stupid ideas and useless, possibly dangerous, possibly deadly snake-oil.  But anyone with 5 brain cells and a modicum of responsibility should be absolutely allowed to deny the snake-oil salesmen a respectable platform.  There exists a reasonable line between "information" and "outright bull crap".

That said, I think we're not seeing censorship here.  I think we're seeing the market reacting to the bottom dropping out of the stupid idea/deadly snake-oil business.  (At least it's current anti-vax form).  I'm thinking it's due to the multi-year efforts of people to educate and spread information about the dangers of anti-vax.  That, and all the horrible outbreaks of measles happening around the world.  Only a matter of time before some kid dies, and some class-action-suit-happy lawyers start looking at YouTube's deep pockets...

 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Self-censorship is absolutely the answer.  You can always find people willing to sell you stupid ideas and useless, possibly dangerous, possibly deadly snake-oil.  But anyone with 5 brain cells and a modicum of responsibility should be absolutely allowed to deny the snake-oil salesmen a respectable platform.  There exists a reasonable line between "information" and "outright bull crap".

That said, I think we're not seeing censorship here.  I think we're seeing the market reacting to the bottom dropping out of the stupid idea/deadly snake-oil business.  (At least it's current anti-vax form).  I'm thinking it's due to the multi-year efforts of people to educate and spread information about the dangers of anti-vax.  That, and all the horrible outbreaks of measles happening around the world.  Only a matter of time before some kid dies, and some class-action-suit-happy lawyers start looking at YouTube's deep pockets...

Unless the bigwigs at FB and Amazon are actually scientists themselves, then any decision they make on the matter is based entirely on politics and/or their personal beliefs.  It looks like an objective and reasonable decision at first glance.  After all, vaccines are good and there's no defensible scientific reason to not vaccinate.  But now that the camel's nose is in the tent, will FB and Amazon also start censoring Flat Earth people?  Again, easy to be okay with that to  those of us who  know  the Earth is round, so they'd probably get very little backlash if they did it.  Bad science is bad science.

So what happens when they decide that traditional views on transgenderism are also "nonscientific" and backward enough to censor away?  Homosexuality?  Will they decide that guns are as much a risk to public health as unvaccinated kids and remove content that promotes the ownership of such things?  

What about when Creationism is classified as sufficiently unscientific enough, in the face of evolution, to warrant such censoring?

And no, legal liability is not a defense.  Platforms like YouTube and Facebook are classified as platforms for others to place content and they're not legally responsible for the messages, just the same way the phone company can't be sued for things you might say over the phone.

This is not a slippery slope fallacy argument, since we already have examples to demonstrate how this can progress with FB, Twitter  and YT already having been caught censoring content for political reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Self-censorship is absolutely the answer.  You can always find people willing to sell you stupid ideas and useless, possibly dangerous, possibly deadly snake-oil.  But anyone with 5 brain cells and a modicum of responsibility should be absolutely allowed to deny the snake-oil salesmen a respectable platform.  There exists a reasonable line between "information" and "outright bull crap".

And this is the difference between you and I NT.  This is why I am FIRMLY  classical liberal.  I do not trust that ANYBODY handed the levers of power would 1.) be capable of determining where that reasonable line is, 2.) not take advantage of that power to create arbitrary lines to silence their enemies.

I prefer that each individual be given EQUAL access to ALL INFORMATION - snake oil and non snake oil - and given the liberty to decide for themselves where truth lies.  This power should rest on the individual.  You want to get rid of snake oil salesmen?  Tell people why they should not listen to them.  The more people you convince, the lesser power the snake oil salesman wields.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, unixknight said:

This is not a slippery slope fallacy argument, since we already have examples to demonstrate how this can progress with FB, Twitter  and YT already having been caught censoring content for political reasons.

The censorship discussion between Tim Pool and Twitter's Jack Dorsey should open everyone's eyes as to the dangers of techno-censorship.  "Learn to Code" is deemed hate speech by Twitter causing permanent suspension of certain people.  Why?  Because that's what their "research" on the matter informed them.  Meanwhile, the calls to dox and physical harm on the Covington kids was not deemed hate speech by virtue of the same "research".

So, being happy that techno-giants are engaged in censorship is basically trusting your censorship mechanism for the information superhighway on these coastal elite echo chamber of group-think who are private institutions becoming even more powerful than the government.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, being happy that techno-giants are engaged in censorship is basically trusting your censorship mechanism for the information superhighway on these coastal elite echo chamber of group-think who are private institutions becoming even more powerful than the government.

^This.  This all day long and twice on Sunday.

Every time someone defends YT, FB, Twitter, etc. for the stuff they censor, they're arguing for giving a LOT of power to a group of unelected officials whose primary concern is the benefit of their own company, the powers to censor people.  And yes, they are private companies but they become more powerful every day and their level of political, social and cultural influence far surpasses any lobby group, union, church and even many governments.

But yea, sure, let's not complain because, hey, we feel like they got this one right.  Let's wait until we disagree with their call and THEN we'll freak out.  Just hopefully by that time there will be enough other voices left to join with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

That said, I think we're not seeing censorship here.  I think we're seeing the market reacting to the bottom dropping out of the stupid idea/deadly snake-oil business.  (At least it's current anti-vax form).  I'm thinking it's due to the multi-year efforts of people to educate and spread information about the dangers of anti-vax.  That, and all the horrible outbreaks of measles happening around the world.  Only a matter of time before some kid dies, and some class-action-suit-happy lawyers start looking at YouTube's deep pockets...

Still thinking this is entirely possible.  No slippery slope/bigwigs acting from politics/cultural understandings of what's scientific necessary.

Honestly folks, are you also this ticked off that YouTube doesn't show X-rated porn and Netflix doesn't show rise-of-the-fourth-reich recruitment videos?  I mean, if you want to say "that's different" because of this or that cultural standard, well, why would you exclude anti-science harmful snake oil claims about curing autism from that category?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Still thinking this is entirely possible.  No slippery slope/bigwigs acting from politics/cultural understandings of what's scientific necessary.

Honestly folks, are you also this ticked off that YouTube doesn't show X-rated porn and Netflix doesn't show rise-of-the-fourth-reich recruitment videos?  I mean, if you want to say "that's different" because of this or that cultural standard, well, why would you exclude anti-science harmful snake oil claims about curing autism from that category?

Sigh.  Yep, you just parroted Jack Dorsey's lawyer... whatever her name is.  Very intellectually lazy.  It's not a cultural standard.  It's a LEGAL standard.   How do you think the United States of America managed to implement 1st Amendment Protections and not have child porn in every home?

And yes, I would rather have 4chan - where the "rise of the fourth reich recruitment" and pornographic material is left in true Wild Wild West fashion where I, as a parent, have 100% responsibility for my own children's exposure than have Jack Dorsey determine what is "socially acceptable" for my kids.  Thank you very much. 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And yes, I would rather have 4chan - where the "rise of the fourth reich recruitment" and pornographic material is left in true Wild Wild West fashion where I, as a parent, have 100% responsibility for my own children's exposure than have Jack Dorsey determine what is "socially acceptable" for my kids.  Thank you very much. 

Didn't ask if you wanted 4chan.  You didn't answer my question, you dodged it...

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Didn't ask if you wanted 4chan.  You didn't answer my question, you dodged it...

I didn't.  I just told you.  I have no problem with YouTube carrying x-rated material and nazi material in the same manner that 4chan does if they can get away with it legally.  They can't in the Philippines.  ISP's will take YouTube down because it is illegal in the Philippines to transmit porn over the regulated airwaves.  These are laws voted on by a Democratic system of government not arbitrarily implemented by some private techno-giant who control communication.  In the USA, they can - just like there is Redtube that is free to carry x-rated videos.

So, as YouTube/Twitter/Facebook has become a monopoly... they either need to be broken up or any attempts at ideological and social censorship needs to be challenged regardless of where you fall on the ideological or social line.

Now, I'm going to throw the question back at you...  So you're fine with Facebook banning Zerohedge (anti-establishment financial site), Patreon banning Sargon of Akkad (British conservative sociopolitical commentator), Twitter banning Alex Jones (conspiracy theorist), and Youtube demonetizing "alt right" videos?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Every time someone defends YT, FB, Twitter, etc. for the stuff they censor, they're arguing for giving a LOT of power to a group of unelected officials whose primary concern is the benefit of their own company, the powers to censor people.  And yes, they are private companies but they become more powerful every day and their level of political, social and cultural influence far surpasses any lobby group, union, church and even many governments.

The solution is simple - buy shares in the companies. Then you start to profit from their practices and they are no longer a problem. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support a platform's right to support or block whatever content it wants on its platform..  That is a right of ownership.

I also support the right of anyone who get blocked or otherwise restricted to find/create another platform...

Let the ideas flow and be heard based on value the market assigns them.  Valuable ideas will be heard...  nonsense will diminish and no one group will have a strangle hold on the platform that information flows through

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I support a platform's right to support or block whatever content it wants on its platform..  That is a right of ownership.

I also support the right of anyone who get blocked or otherwise restricted to find/create another platform...

Let the ideas flow and be heard based on value the market assigns them.  Valuable ideas will be heard...  nonsense will diminish and no one group will have a strangle hold on the platform that information flows through

 

 

Sure.  Very capitalistic.  Except... there's a reason anti-monopoly laws are in place to check true laissez-faire.  Unchecked laissez-faire is bad because you can buy power.  For example:  "Valuable ideas will be heard"... not if the platform has a monopoly on the technology that allows your "ideas to be heard".

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Still thinking this is entirely possible.  No slippery slope/bigwigs acting from politics/cultural understandings of what's scientific necessary.

Honestly folks, are you also this ticked off that YouTube doesn't show X-rated porn and Netflix doesn't show rise-of-the-fourth-reich recruitment videos?  I mean, if you want to say "that's different" because of this or that cultural standard, well, why would you exclude anti-science harmful snake oil claims about curing autism from that category?

Again, it's not a slippery slope if there's already a history of how these things deteriorate.

As for the other part...  If YT started allowing porn they'd quickly devolve into just another porn site because nobody else would use it.  Such sites already exist anyway and they'd have to compete.  They know that, and so they made that decision based on the health of the company.  It's not to benefit the community. 

As for fourth reich recruitment vids... By all means, let them be uploaded.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant and I have faith that in the marketplace of open ideas, such videos would be torn  to pieces by the discussion that would pop up because of them.

Frankly, I'd LOVE that.  I'd LOVE to start a YouTube channel that picks apart such videos and expose them for their nonsense.  It would be like those YT channels that rip on flat earth vids.

 

36 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I support a platform's right to support or block whatever content it wants on its platform..  That is a right of ownership.

I also support the right of anyone who get blocked or otherwise restricted to find/create another platform...

Let the ideas flow and be heard based on value the market assigns them.  Valuable ideas will be heard...  nonsense will diminish and no one group will have a strangle hold on the platform that information flows through

I agree with this in principle.  The problem is that some social media outlets command a near monopoly and they know it, and are in a position to use their influence to enact all kinds of social change.  They're already openly discussing ways they can get Trump defeated in 2020, for example, and they have the power to do it.

Yes, creating alternative resources is an option, and is already being done.  Gab as an alternative to Twitter, Minds ad an alternative to FB, etc.  The problem is that because of their complete openness, they've already started to attract enough unsavory content that not everybody is willing to wade in, as well as the fact that these seeds take a long time to grow, and with current cultural tides, it isn't hard to imagine a targeted movement to shut them down.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say a part of me figures that the platform owners can set their own rules, but part of me is disgusted at the Orwellian thought police censorship going on as well, it's always seemed that one of the greatest things the internet has brought us is a more true freedom of expression and freedom of the press. It's sad to see it getting taken over by key decision makers who get to decide what the "facts" are.

I realize people are concerned about the measles outbreaks going around, but does anyone have any data actually showing a significant decline in vaccination?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/385577/mmr-vaccination-rate-among-us-children-aged-19-35-months/

This shows fairly consistent uptake of the MMR vaccine over the last 25 years, in fact a sustained increase since the 90's. It seems reasonable that there would have been equally vulnerable segments of the population all this time as we are seeing now. Why would the measles be eradicated in the early 2000's and returning in the last four years when vaccine rates have remained essentially constant? It doesn't fit the narrative that we've seen a precipitous drop in vaccination and are suddenly vulnerable because the same level of vaccination that is supposedly afforded us protection less than 20 years ago isn't protective now. That doesn't really make sense. It could lead a person to wonder what's going on. Could it be that the vaccines are losing efficacy and the antivax movement is a great scapegoat for vaccine failure? Or perhaps true herd immunity existed in the older segment of the population who survived the infection, but as those who contracted measles as children are dying off in advanced age the herd protection they offered is dying too and the vaccine waning immunity isn't holding up. I don't know what's actually causing any of it, and I'm not ruling out a decline in vaccination, but I'm doubtful that this trend changed that drastically in the two years not shown on the graph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Now, I'm going to throw the question back at you...  So you're fine with Facebook banning Zerohedge (anti-establishment financial site), Patreon banning Sargon of Akkad (British conservative sociopolitical commentator), Twitter banning Alex Jones (conspiracy theorist), and Youtube demonetizing "alt right" videos?

I was not happy with Twitter banning, and my family is up in arms about the Patreon bans.  But yeah, I'm ok with these places making their choices and facing their consequences.   

I'm down with breaking up monopolies.  Fine with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

I have to say a part of me figures that the platform owners can set their own rules, but part of me is disgusted at the Orwellian thought police censorship going on as well, it's always seemed that one of the greatest things the internet has brought us is a more true freedom of expression and freedom of the press. It's sad to see it getting taken over by key decision makers who get to decide what the "facts" are.

I realize people are concerned about the measles outbreaks going around, but does anyone have any data actually showing a significant decline in vaccination?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/385577/mmr-vaccination-rate-among-us-children-aged-19-35-months/

This shows fairly consistent uptake of the MMR vaccine over the last 25 years, in fact a sustained increase since the 90's. It seems reasonable that there would have been equally vulnerable segments of the population all this time as we are seeing now. Why would the measles be eradicated in the early 2000's and returning in the last four years when vaccine rates have remained essentially constant? It doesn't fit the narrative that we've seen a precipitous drop in vaccination and are suddenly vulnerable because the same level of vaccination that is supposedly afforded us protection less than 20 years ago isn't protective now. That doesn't really make sense. It could lead a person to wonder what's going on. Could it be that the vaccines are losing efficacy and the antivax movement is a great scapegoat for vaccine failure? Or perhaps true herd immunity existed in the older segment of the population who survived the infection, but as those who contracted measles as children are dying off in advanced age the herd protection they offered is dying too and the vaccine waning immunity isn't holding up. I don't know what's actually causing any of it, and I'm not ruling out a decline in vaccination, but I'm doubtful that this trend changed that drastically in the two years not shown on the graph.

Interesting, and I would assume 2018 was probably similar to 2017 and yet people are complaining about an outbreak. If a percentage is the around the same, give or take a few percentages, what then is the real issue? A so called "outbreak" occurs with a relatively similar percentage of vaccinated people since 1994 -- assuming this information actually represents the whole.

EDIT: I have the true solution though SpiritDragon. Mandate that no one can leave the US, where they potentially will bring back with them diseases of places that are less likely to be vaccinated. If you never leave US, less likely to bring back a disease. Solved. Force everyone to stay. Shut down all international flights, and allow no one to leave the US. There you go. The problem is all the people who have left the US and come back from countries that have a higher chance for harmful diseases. ;)

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share