Vaccines Social Media and the Public Health by Kim Finer Article Paper Here are three of the comments: 1. Injecting newborns and infants with disease and

Vaccines Social Media and the Public Health by Kim Finer Article Paper Here are three of the comments:

1. Injecting newborns and infants with disease and neurotoxins is disgusting science that injures millions every year…shame on all of you and your souls.

2. Poor baby…. Forget those natural immunities we got the good stu? right here in this syringe.

3. I am sorry to see you unnecessarily putting your kid at risk by responding to faux science and propaganda.

CHECK OUT THE WORD FILE ATTACHED Vaccines, Social Media, and the Public Health
by Kim R. Finer
Introduction – Vaccines and Vitriol
Couples have babies, whether adopted or birthed, and raise children. That’s not
typically national news, unless of course you are Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla
Chan. Zuckerberg, who is chairman, CEO, and co-founder of Facebook, has over 90
million followers and his every personal and professional move is discussed by national
media and followers alike. In 2016, when Mark announced that baby Max was ready for
her first vaccine series, the web exploded with thoughts, advice, and critiques of the
action including over 70,000 comments, many by anti-vaccine proponents including the
quotes below (, ). Here are three of the comments:
1. Injecting newborns and infants with disease and neurotoxins is disgusting science
that injures millions every year…shame on all of you and your souls.
2. Poor baby…. Forget those natural immunities we got the good stu? right here in this
syringe.
3. I am sorry to see you unnecessarily putting your kid at risk by responding to faux
science and propaganda.
Who knew that a routine childhood experience would raise such ire? And where do
critics of vaccines get information regarding vaccine public health value or toxicity? Are
these opponents immunologists, medical experts, or microbiologists? Have they read
the scientific literature or carried out experiments to demonstrate a link between vaccine
administration and adverse events such as death, neurological impairment, and
physical disability? Or are their opinions shaped and formulated through social media,
personal experience, and cultural bias? If it’s any of the explanations provided in the
previous sentence, then their opinions are most likely grounded in pseudoscience.
These individuals did not use the scientific method (or access information derived from
its application)— in coming to their conclusions. Using the scientific method means that
you test hypotheses (educated guesses) in order to get empirical evidence for your
conclusions.
When searching the web for information and guidance regarding personal health issues,
it is important to remember that you can’t always believe what you read. Rather, it is
imperative that you evaluate statements/posts/blogs critically to determine if the
information is based upon research using the scientific method.
Question
1. Do the individual posts in the Introduction re?ect any or all of these: unwarranted
opinions, anecdotes, statements resulting from analysis of empirical data?
1
1)
2)
3)
Video
View the following video that is posted on our Blackboard site (it is a little hokey, but it
gets the point across):
Chit Chat with Carol Conley – https://youtu.be/lqPvgLtB4Fo
Part I – Science vs. Pseudoscience
The separation between science and pseudoscience has been debated by some
and the use of the term “pseudoscience” dismissed by others. However, if we focus on
the scientific process—testing hypotheses with defined methods to approach
problems—a clear di?erence emerges. Pseudoscience statements arise from opinion
without any (or contrary to) experimental analysis, i.e., unwarranted opinion. Network
television talk shows often present “science” discussions, which aren’t really based in
science. Dr. Phil, Ellen, Steve Harvey, personalities on The View and The Talk, and
many others bring in guests who tell stories that often revolve around characters such
as villains, victims, and heroes. These stories, or anecdotes, are usually emotional and
appeal to the audience by tugging at their heartstrings. Media personalities (heroes)
often strive to defend the “weak” (children as victims) against the strong (“big pharma”
as villains). Anecdotes make for great entertainment because a function of media—
either traditional or social—is to entertain. This results in confusion for a public trying to
distinguish medicine from quackery or science from pseudoscience.
2
In a scientific study, a hypothesis—an exploratory idea that can be tested—is
formulated after identifying a problem or study area that one has questions about.
Experiments and/or studies are then constructed and conducted using appropriate
controls and variables to test the hypothesis. Once data is generated, it is evaluated in
an objective manner, conclusions are drawn, and the hypothesis is either supported, or
rejected and reformulated. Although often
presented in a linear fashion, steps of the
scientific method may circle back to the
hypothesis or experimental details for
modification as necessary. For example, if
a hypothesis is not supported by the data, a
scientist may go back and revise the
hypothesis to test a new idea on the same
subject material.
It is important that experimental
results are replicated by others in the
particular scientific field. In other words,
independent confirmation of the study’s
conclusions must take place—thus science
is “self-correctable.” If a study/experiment
cannot be repeated, the experimental
conclusions are called into question,
requiring further investigation.
Unfortunately social media and network TV
shows often fall into the single study trap,
reporting only a preliminary study without
following up on confirming or con?icting
studies, and thus failing the repeatability
test.
Questions
Go back and look at the three posts in the Introduction that you labeled as containing
unwarranted opinions, anecdotes, or statements resulting from analysis of empirical
data.
2. Characterize each post (1, 2, and 3) as either science or pseudoscience. Explain
your choice.
3
3. The Chit Chat with Carol Conley talk show hosted two guests. Which guest(s), Dr.
Amy Ashton or Mr. Josh Jenkins, seemed to discuss details from a scientific
perspective? Which guest(s) discussed the details from a pseudoscience perspective?
Provide a rationale for your determination.
4. Was any empirical evidence (data) presented during the talk show? If the answer is
yes, summarize the details.
5. Did any of the guests share stories or anecdotes to support their statements? If so,
identify the guest(s) and the associated details in his/her (their) story.
Part II – Application to online websites with “facts” on vaccines.
6. Could you find examples of websites based on science, and websites based on
pseudoscience? List one based on pseudoscience below:
7. How do you know it is pseudoscience?
4

Purchase answer to see full
attachment