Minister targets anti-vaccination websites - BBC March 2019

heard this being discussed on Radio2 today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47699791

whilst in this case I can see why they want to do it; but I think it might be a worrying precedent particularly for pwME given the power that certain people and the SMC have.

eta: Maybe they should instead be asking the Lancet why it took 12 years to retract the Wakefield paper.

 

I think that is a good idea. Social media is not the platform to discuss the issues of vaccines; it's a low IQ, soundbite platform that often deals in simple emotion rather than detailed logic.

Forums like this are a better platform to discuss these issues. I don't see this as the government trying to shut down debate, but rather trying to prevent the "Madness of Crowds"



Personally I think we need more vaccines, to cover all the common viruses that are linked to various chronic diseases. Viruses like CVB, EBV, cytomegalovirus, etc.

At the same time, we do see many patients on the ME/CFS forums whose illness appeared within days of a vaccination. One minute they were healthy, next minute they have full-blown ME/CFS. Dr John Chia estimates that around 1.5% of ME/CFS cases are post-vaccination.

Thus I would like to see more research into vaccine safety.

 

Id like to see childhood vaccination made mandatory like some other countries have done.

 

The absurdity of censoring anti-vaxxers | The Spectator

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-absurdity-of-censoring-anti-vaxxers/

 

I think this would be the start of a very, very, VERY slippery slope.

The next things that would be in the firing line is access to information about statins that disagrees with what pharmaceutical companies want us to think.

And what about diet? How many people would have tried a low carb diet and learned the benefits of it if information had been deleted.

The pharma companies don't want people to know that diabetes type 2 is reversible with the right diet.

Or thyroid treatment? Doctors never mention T3 or NDT, they tell patients there is nothing available except Levothyroxine because they have been brainwashed by pharma companies who do well on supplying meds for diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, chronic pain, dementia etc that inflict people who are poorly treated for hypothyroidism. Many doctors believe that NDT is a placebo, even though it saved the lives of countless thousands, possibly even millions, in the 70 years before Levo prescribing became widespread. Many of them also believe that T3 will kill you.

 

Myself I don't think this is about access to information. It is more about the fact that some social media platforms can be mindless echo chambers for any old opinions and ideas, such that these ideas propagate without ever being confronted by critical thinking or factual evidence.

In fact the mindless echo chambers phenomenon on the Internet is an issue that needs to be addressed not just for medical issues, but for all important topics of discussion.


This Wikipedia article covers the issue of Internet echo chambers.

 

Wiki IS an internet echo chamber.

 

Are you sure you understand what an Internet echo chamber is? These echo chambers are hearsay environments.

Wikipedia is the complete opposite of an echo chamber: statements you make on Wikipedia are assessed and checked by your fellow Wikipedia editors for their factual accuracy against reliable and authoritative sources.

 

Reliable and authoritative sources checked by your fellow Wiki editors.

 

Lets let wiki settle this. What does wiki say about itself?

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all of the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them, their interests, education and background, and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

 

And don't forget that anyone with an axe to grind can delete pages they don't like. For example, Dr Malcolm Kendrick's page got deleted fairly recently because some stupid and anonymous wiki editor decided he was a quack. There appeared to be little or no requirement for this person to justify what they did.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/03/dr-malcolm-kendrick-deletion-from-wikipedia/

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/18/wikipedia-a-parable-for-our-times/

 

Wikipedia says about itself that it is not perfect, and no system is. But by and large Wikipedia works well. One study examined the accuracy of Wikipedia compared to Britannica, and found they were about equal.

On Wikipedia medical, where I've very occasionally done some editing, I found it is almost impossible to include any statement that is not backed up by authoritative scientific sources.

Of course, if those sources themselves, are wrong as in the PACE trial case, then unfortunately Wikipedia will also reflect that error. But that's not Wikipedia's fault; that's an issue with the authoritative sources themselves (which is why we all want to see the PACE trial retracted).

Thus in general Wikipedia is not an environment where unsubstantiated and unproven hearsay can propagate in a viral manner, as it may do on social media.

Nor is it a place where you can post inane videos of cats that propagate virally and attract the attention of millions!

So no, Wikipedia is not a media echo chamber.

 

There is an article in my local paper today that say a boy nearly died of tetanus and incurred over $800,000 in medical bills because he had not been vaccinated. I had never heard anything against tetanus vaccine. I gave it to my horses and myself for years.

That is a fairly low number. It could be just coincidence.

I hadn't heard that one before. If hope my new Medicare doctor will continue my prescription. If not, I will have to go back to the doctor who originally prescribed it (who costs more).

Well then what good is it!

 

It could be, though I would like to see more research on this.

Dr Charles Shepherd of the ME Associated has a long-standing interest in post-vaccination ME/CFS.

Generally though I suspect we would dramatically lower the incidence of ME/CFS if new vaccines were developed that cover the viruses associated with ME/CFS, like coxsackievirus B, Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus.

 

Just because it may carry accurate information it doesn't mean its no less capable of being an echo chamber than the rest of the internet.

If a blanket claim can be made for social media or other parts of the internet being an echo chamber it can be equally made for wiki.

Heres more from wiki about itself..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

 

Wasn’t there a study on post HPV vaccine ME/CFS done recently that found it was just coincidence?

Ultimately there’s always a tiny risk of serious complications with vaccines of course, it’s all a case of risk vs reward.

 

So what should happen to people who say, "there’s always a tiny risk of serious complications with vaccines of course"? Should they be reported to the authorities?

Do people have the right to know if they or their children are potentially in that risk group and should medical science work on identifying them? Or is it better to just mandate all vaccines to peoples children?

The current vaccine schedule or all new ones, how many new ones?

How many vaccines is it possible to take without increasing the potential serious consequences you speak of? 10? 20? 50? 100? who will decide the answers to these questions? Pharma companies? Politicians?

Remember the opening post in this thread commences with this statement...

Is your statement....

"there’s always a tiny risk of serious complications with vaccines of course"

......false information? Can you make such a statement on social media? Should this forum be forced to remove your statement using new legislation?

 

Sounds a bit too "1982" for my liking.

 

It is. But with that sort of equation there needs to be proper recognition of those for whom risk turns into adverse events. It is not good enough to say that there are overall benefits for society. Those adversely affected need to be fairly evaluated and compensated.

I seem to recall discovering that there is a book on vaccination damage written in the 50s or 60s by one of the great and the good. It was apparently not generally available to the public in libraries and had to be specifically requested. That's the way to build confidence. I think I recall how I found the details and could probably find it again.