Vaccines social media and the public health answer key

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 stuff 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 reflect 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 difference 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.