Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 17 2019, @03:48AM   Printer-friendly
from the It-is-SO-GOOD-"they"-are-afraid-to-let-us-tell-you-about-it! dept.

Submitted via IRC for AnonymousLuser

Peddlers of Medical Misinformation Are Using Social Media 'Censorship' as a Selling Point

Speech OnlineSpeech OnlineThis week, we're looking at the state of free speech on the internet, how we got here, and where we're going.  

No one has ever accused Mike Adams, the self-proclaimed Health Ranger, of being an understated guy, but recent events have taken him to new, shouty heights. After Adams' website, Natural News, had its page suspended by Facebook in June for violating the company's spam policies, Adams likened the suspension to genocide and said President Trump should use the military, if necessary, to break up tech companies. But Adams—and other peddlers of medical misinformation, including many anti-vaccine personalities—are also working hard to make their supposed muzzling by social media companies into a selling point and a profit-driver.

In an email blast on June 30, Adams accused Google of gaming search results to "to defame and attack all natural health topics, all while banning natural health websites from its search results." He added that the search engine giant "has gone all-in with Monsanto, Big Pharma, chemotherapy, pesticides, 5G, geoengineering, fluoride and every other poison you can imagine."

And then, naturally, he turned around and offered to sell his audience the supplements So Powerful That Google Is Trying to Hide Them (emphasis his):

P.S. Despite Google's malicious attacks on health and nutrition, the truth is that nutritional supplements works. For the next day or so, we've got an event running on PQQ, CoQ10 and other specialty supplements that dramatically increase your intake of cell-supporting nutrients (including brain-supporting nutrients). Check out the details here.

It is emblematic of the strange moment we've arrived at in the selling of misinformation online, particularly the medical variety. In recent months, several social media giants have announced their intention to crack down on that misinformation, including most particularly anti-vaccine content. (Pinterest made the "vaccine" hashtag literally impossible to search for since virtually every search resultshowed up anti-vax content.)

But the process has been late, slow, and inconsistent. Take Instagram, which banned some anti-vaccine hashtags in March, but left others alone. Today, some of those banned hashtags, like #vaccineskill, have made a noticeable comeback, and there are anti-vaccine accounts aplenty, including Vaccine Truth,which has 60,000 followers. Or take the lively world of fake cancer cures: theWall Street Journalrecently noted that YouTube and Facebook are still overrun with the same fake cancer treatments that have been circulating online for years. That includes black salve, a longtime faux treatment for skin cancer that in actuality just burns skin away without killing cancer growths, and the entire opus of Robert O. Young, who promotes things like juicing regimens and "alkaline infusions" to cure cancer, infusions that critics say are functionally just injections of a baking soda cocktail. Young went to prison in 2017 for practicing medicine without a license, and he was ordered to pay over $100 million in a civil lawsuit filed against him by a terminal cancer patient who'd used his treatments the following year. Yet he's back on Facebook and busily selling his products through a network of interconnected pages.

In other words, the social media companies' supposed "crackdown" has been bizarre, partial, and in some cases, not permanent. The entire muddled process has certainly complicated business for people who make a living selling misinformation. But it's also given them a recognizable new selling point, a way to claim to the audience they still very much have on these same social media platforms that their ideas simply must work, which is why Big Government and Big Pharma are trying to muzzle them.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 17 2019, @02:31PM (8 children)

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday July 17 2019, @02:31PM (#868001)

    This is an attempt to smear everyone that questions conventional medical and nutritional science. If we had been this censorious about doing that in the past, everyone would still be eating margarine, avoiding eggs, and "healthy fats" would never have been used.

    Anything that questions anything that big pharma labels a "vaccine" is labelled "anti-vaxx". I'm not anti-vaxx, I'm pro-useful-vaxx. That means I don't do flu vaccine every year. This year the flu vaccine turned out to be about 9% effective. 9%. Since your immune system is LOWER for about 2 weeks after a flu vaccination, that means the flu vaccine did more harm than good this year. Look it up. Those governments MANDATING a flu vaccine are irresponsible tyrants.

    Don't even get me started on the HPV vaccine scam. Have you seen the scar-mongering commercials they use to sell that stuff now? "Mom, did you know?" OMG! It will be 50 years before we really know if the vaccines are effective at ALL in preventing cervical cancer (and... "other cancers" in men? Really?) but we've already seen the nasty side effects that they sometimes cause.

    And Rick Perry actually made that one mandatory for all Texas school children at one time. THAT demonstrates the power of big pharma on our governments.

    This shows their power over big tech (they are a HUGE advertiser after all - how do you think big tech makes their money, anyway).

    The point is, we need to have these discussions, we need to hear about people's experiences, and we don't need these multinational corporations acting as filters for all of that.

    --
    I am a crackpot
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday July 17 2019, @04:00PM (4 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday July 17 2019, @04:00PM (#868045) Journal

    While I agree with you that we should have healthy discussion and should be very cautious about censorship, it's hard to agree with you when you spout obvious BS.

    I'm not anti-vaxx, I'm pro-useful-vaxx. That means I don't do flu vaccine every year. This year the flu vaccine turned out to be about 9% effective. 9%. Since your immune system is LOWER for about 2 weeks after a flu vaccination, that means the flu vaccine did more harm than good this year. Look it up. Those governments MANDATING a flu vaccine are irresponsible tyrants.

    Can I ask where you found that 9% number? The CDC's preliminary estimate [cdc.gov] from February was 47% effectiveness overall, including 44% effectiveness against the H3N2 strain. The reason I mention that latter number because the second wave of flu this spring was unusual, and H3N2 protection is known to decline faster after getting vaccinated compared to other strains. When the second wave hit, it was too long after many people were vaccinated to provide the best protection.

    But even given that, the only place I've seen a number of 9% quoted is here [statnews.com], which claims a 9% effectiveness against the second strain (presumably H3N2) which I've already noted was expected to be lower that late in the season. But that link there also notes the overall estimate of effectiveness for the 2018-19 flu season was still 29% overall. Not good, but not 9%. Typically, for the past decade or so, effectiveness for the vaccine is usually 40-50% or so [cdc.gov], hardly something to scoff at for being completely ineffective, especially when it's estimated that tens of thousands of people die every year due to complications from the flu. If you're a healthy (younger) adult, you might get by with something relatively mild, or you might be hospitalized, but will likely survive. If you're a senior or small child, the consequences of being around people who get the flu could be much more dire. Note again the second link above (the one I found which had something resembling your 9% claim), which also notes that the vaccine in the 2018-19 season likely prevented 40,000 to 90,000 hospitalizations this year.

    I'm not saying there flu shots are perfect. I went for several years without getting them myself. I was suspicious myself. About two years ago I spent some time reading about the scientific difficulty in producing an effective vaccine from year-to-year (which involves predicting which viruses will be prevalent that year, an inexact science, but which still tends to lead to 40-50% effectiveness or more most years). If you read the scientific studies on flu viruses, you'll understand perfectly well why the vaccine can't work better yet. It's not a Big Pharma conspiracy.

    And claims like "the flu vaccine did more harm than good this year. Look it up. Those governments MANDATING a flu vaccine are irresponsible tyrants" are irresponsible and reckless hyperbole with no basis in fact.

    Perhaps you can make an argument that mandatory vaccination with the flu vaccine is as-yet unwarranted given its unpredictable effectiveness, but I'd listen to you a lot more if you actually used real figures rather than BS hyperbole.

    Don't even get me started on the HPV vaccine scam. Have you seen the scar-mongering commercials they use to sell that stuff now? "Mom, did you know?" OMG! It will be 50 years before we really know if the vaccines are effective at ALL in preventing cervical cancer (and... "other cancers" in men? Really?) but we've already seen the nasty side effects that they sometimes cause.

    Okay, once again, I'm not going to necessarily argue in favor of mandatory vaccination here yet either, but again your claims are rather irrational. According to the WHO [who.int], "The main burden of HPV-related disease is due to cervical cancer. HPV was estimated to cause 100% of the almost 260,000 deaths from cervical cancer worldwide in 2005." and also "91% of global estimated HPV-related cancer deaths are due to cervical cancer."

    So, for your claim that the vaccines might NOT be "effective at ALL in preventing cervical cancer" would require that all science around cervical cancer and all links to HPV be bogus. Are you seriously claiming that? If so, I suggest again you go read some actual science, rather than spewing invective and conspiracy theories about Big Pharma.

    Once again, if you're willing to engage in rational debate about such things and justify why the cost/benefit analysis of the HPV vaccine may not justify widespread or mandatory vaccination, I'd be willing to listen. But if you're going to argue "we need to have discussions," then you're setting a really bad example for the kind of unfiltered discourse that could be productive.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @05:02PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17 2019, @05:02PM (#868080)

      That's very interesting information that you quoted from the CDC and WHO. What you, and many others, are failing to realize is that a significant portion of the population no longer has any trust or faith in government institutions. Or even non-government institutions anymore. So all your information and statistics from those sources will not be believed by large portions of the population.

      That the majority will learn of this information primarily via the large media outlets, who are known to be lying liars who lie, will reduce belief in the information even further.

      This is all a small part of the larger story of the collapse of our former high-trust civilization into a low-trust civilization.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 18 2019, @03:06AM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday July 18 2019, @03:06AM (#868341) Journal

        I realize this, but who do you trust then? There are independent studies that aren't funded by the vaccine companies or the government that come to similar conclusions and list similar stats (maybe not the most recent year for the flu vaccine, as the data hasn't been processed yet). Do we not trust any scientists either? Instead, do we then just turn to some random guy with a "medical" website that spouts unsupported claims?

        People do trust SOMEBODY -- they trust the people who peddle the narrative they already believe. In this case, it may be some random dude on the internet rambling on about how Big Pharma wants to kill everyone. Does anyone here think I *like* Big Pharma? I absolutely do not. There are lots of abuses, and we have a horribly dysfunctional medical system.

        But that doesn't mean that all studies are part of a massive conspiracy. You just need to have the sense to evaluate individual studies and their sources yourself.

    • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday July 17 2019, @08:46PM

      by Alfred (4006) on Wednesday July 17 2019, @08:46PM (#868206) Journal
      Have you heard about the Fascists? Government and Mega Corp being in it together? Guess what the connection is here. Big pharma sells it and the CDC and WHO endorse it. Very symbiotic, for them. If the issue is as stated then the CDC is not credible either.

      Besides, the medical industry has issues beyond insurance woes. For example, there is never a cause of death listed as Chemotherapy. If chemo kills you, which is kinda what it was designed for, your cause of death is listed as cancer. That isn't accurate, the medical industry does not have integrity.
    • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 17 2019, @10:41PM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday July 17 2019, @10:41PM (#868261)

      Can I ask where you found that 9% number?

      I have to confess to not reading the entire article. You're right, it was from the later strain, but, still 29% is lousy.

      hardly something to scoff at for being completely ineffective, especially when it's estimated that tens of thousands of people die every year due to complications from the flu. If you're a healthy (younger) adult, you might get by with something relatively mild, or you might be hospitalized, but will likely survive. If you're a senior or small child, the consequences of being around people who get the flu could be much more dire. Note again the second link above (the one I found which had something resembling your 9% claim), which also notes that the vaccine in the 2018-19 season likely prevented 40,000 to 90,000 hospitalizations this year.

      You're leaning a bit into propaganda territory, here (are you in the industry, by chance?), but I'll bite. In 2013, CDC found that the flu vaccine was only 9% effective for seniors [sfgate.com]. And you're completely ignoring all the risks. And there ARE risks. Any time you are injected with chemicals and foreign bodies there is a risk. Walking around with a lowered immune system for a couple of weeks is a well-known common one. If you think the risks are worth it, there is no reason you should not be allowed to accept them and get the shot. That does NOT mean it's okay for a tyrant to force you into taking it.

      HPV was estimated to cause 100% of the almost 260,000 deaths from cervical cancer worldwide in 2005." and also "91% of global estimated HPV-related cancer deaths are due to cervical cancer."

      More propaganda. You could have just said "Why don't you think of the children" like that horrible advertisement. You stat says NOTHING. First, boys do not get cervical cancer, why are you risking their health with this terrible vaccine? The WHO is very heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, but I won't bother pointing that out, since you take what they say is gospel. But look at your quote: an "estimate" resulted in "100%". I reads like a lie.

      So, for your claim that the vaccines might NOT be "effective at ALL in preventing cervical cancer" would require that all science around cervical cancer and all links to HPV be bogus. Are you seriously claiming that?

      Are you claiming that HPV always leads to cancer, and that all cervical cancer is caused by HPV? Not even your WHO link claimed that. How effective will the vaccine be at preventing cancer? We can't know for MANY YEARS, because only very rarely does HPV actually cause cancer. Most HPV infections in young men and women are transient, lasting no more than one or two years. It is estimated that the infection will persist in only about 1% of women. Usually, the body clears the infection on its own. The vaccine only protects against a few strains.

      And, again, you're acting like there are no downsides to taking the vaccine. That is demonstrably false! People sensitive to it can become disabled for life. Quite a risk for a possibility of maybe avoiding a cancer.

      The best way to avoid cervical cancer? That has actually dramatically reduced cervical cancer death in the last 40 years? Regular PAP smears!

      Once again, if you're willing to engage in rational debate about such things and justify why the cost/benefit analysis of the HPV vaccine may not justify widespread or mandatory vaccination, I'd be willing to listen. But if you're going to argue "we need to have discussions," then you're setting a really bad example for the kind of unfiltered discourse that could be productive.

      Pretty sure you're just lying, here, because you're acting like vaccines themselves have no risks and can never harm anyone. You need to do that before it can become an actual "discussion," and not just you shouting propaganda.

      --
      I am a crackpot
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by ilsa on Thursday July 18 2019, @04:40PM (2 children)

    by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 18 2019, @04:40PM (#868563)

    Considering how completely and utterly wrong you are about the HPV vaccine (I'm being generous and saying you are misinformed, rather that flat out lying), you managed to single handedly justify the rational behind the censorship.

    The problem is that refuting bullshit is 100x more time and energy consuming than it is to spit out bullshit. I could go into a long essay about all the ways in which you are wrong, but I am not willing to invest that kind of time in some stranger with an armchair medical degree who will just make up some excuse and handwave whatever I say anyway.

    Now multiply that by the sheer number of kooks and crooks out there who have a vested monetary interest in spreading medical falsehoods. It's a massive game of whackamole, and we are now reaching the point where entities, both individual and corporate, are saying "enough is enough".

    You wanna have some idiotic opinion about something you know nothing about? That's fine. NO ONE is under any kind of obligation to hand you a megaphone so you can shout that opinion to the world.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Thursday July 18 2019, @09:41PM (1 child)

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday July 18 2019, @09:41PM (#868700)

      ... says the pharmaceutical shill.

      You know what happens when you censor people JUST FOR QUESTIONING what's going on, and responding by IGNORING all known risks and spouting clear propaganda?

      You lose all trust.

      --
      I am a crackpot
      • (Score: 2) by ilsa on Friday July 19 2019, @04:40PM

        by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 19 2019, @04:40PM (#869051)

        Right, so because I called you out on your blatant lies, I'm with BIG PHARMA(TM). How very typical.

        You claim that you're "questioning". You are not. You are making flagrantly incorrect statements and asserting them as if they were fact. And then you try to use your conviction in lieu of actual facts, and then throw a temper tantrum when people call you on it.

        The HPV vaccine has been wildly successful. Countries that have mandatory vaccine programs are *already* seeing a drop in rates of things like Cervical cancer. You'd know that if you had bothered to do even a modicum of research instead of relying on your armchair medical degree.

        So yeah, go back to the youtube comments and peddle your vagina rocks, quantum water or whatever scam you peddle to satisfy your misanthropy.