Re: OT: was: Re: YouTube proving fertile ground for anti-vaccination campaigners

[Guest guest]

Thanks, she is wild1 n

OT: was: Re: YouTube proving fertile ground for anti-vaccination campaigners

You tube is also a breeding ground for some hilarious stuff. Ifanyone needs a laugh it's us. Watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWrj9TaA0Mc--- In EOHarm , Aasa <penas7ar@...> wrote:>> Kumanan and his cohorts have their sad-assed agendas, but Ihope that most people can see past these, and not be fooled by theirgarbage, > > Aasa> > Aasa <penas7ar@...> wrote:> Kumanan was one of the creeps who was involved inthe 2004 IOM fiasco:> http://www.iom.edu/?id=26925> > Aasa (P.S., I am sorry that that twit is a countryman of mine!) Iwould send him elsewhere if I could, however that is not always possible!> > autismlink <cindy@...> wrote:> YouTube proving fertile ground for anti-vaccination campaigners> > Dec 4, 2007>http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVL8_L-Hff3bNhErs75Adr-5URmg> > TORONTO - It may be better known as the place to go to watch a drunken> Hasselhoff eating a hamburger, but the video website YouTube has> also become a popular and effective soapbox for people who believe> vaccinations are harmful, a new scientific review reveals.> > And public health authorities need to come to grips with the potential> impact YouTube, Facebook and the whole Internet-based> social-networking phenomenon could have on policies like universal> vaccinations, suggested the authors, researchers from the University> of Toronto and York University.> > Senior author Dr. Kumanan said he calls the approach> "anti-vaccination 2.0" - a play on the term Web 2.0.> > "This is their new strategy for communicating," said , an> internal medicine specialist and a public health policy researcher.> > "These people believe their viewpoint is not being aired in public.> They believe that they are being shut out of the discourse and they> want to get their viewpoint out. And this is their way of creating> commercials for their viewpoints.> > "And they're putting a lot of effort into it. And other people ...> just from the view counts and the ratings, are coming on and wanting> to find out more about these viewpoints. Their videos are being viewed> and rated highly."> > The findings were published Wednesday as a research letter in the> Journal of the American Medical Association.> > and lead author Keelan have been collaborating for> several years on work aimed at understanding the anti-vaccination> movement.> > When YouTube hit the web and started generating buzz, Keelan wanted to> see if vaccine opponents had recognized it as a unguarded portal to> the world's Internet users. They had.> > Among the offerings were documentary-type videos capturing the views> of parents of autistic children who blame particular vaccines or> thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative formerly used in vaccine> manufacture, for the autism. (Thimerosal is still used in the> manufacture of flu vaccine for children.)> > "It's the perfect venue for an anecdote, both positive or negative,"> Keelan said in an interview.> > "And while it's certainly not the communications structure trained> public health professionals would think to use, anecdotes - we know> from research - are incredibly powerful at conveying information about> risk. And they're also incredibly persuasive."> > For this study, the authors searched YouTube for videos on> "immunization" or "vaccination" on Feb. 20, 2007, roughly a year after> the website was launched. They found 153. (On Tuesday, those same> search terms brought up 1,668 hits.)> > Of that total, 73 were pro-immunization, 49 were anti-vaccination and> 31 were deemed "ambiguous." When the researchers looked at view counts> and ratings, the videos with the anti-vaccination messages were> watched more often and were rated more highly by viewers.> > "We were startled by our findings," admitted Keelan, an assistant> professor of public health sciences at the University of Toronto.> > "We were expecting to see maybe some difference between the way> viewers saw the negative videos versus the positive videos. But we> weren't expecting it to be so significant."> > Janis Whitlock, a researcher at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.,> has been studying Internet message boards to see what role they might> play in spreading information about self-injury. Whitlock, who> recently shifted her attention to YouTube, agreed the medium is a> powerful one.> > "YouTube has become ... the new message board. And it's so much more> powerful - at least for the self-injury stuff," she said. "You> combined with the text these images and music ... phew... and it's> very intense."> > The authors and Whitlock said public health is going to have to come> to grips with this medium of information dissemination.> > "It spreads. It spreads emotions. It spreads ideas. It spreads> methods. It spreads means. It spreads reasons," said Whitlock, a> professor with Cornell's Family Life Development Center.> > "And we can't ignore ... that it's the dissemination of information,> for ill or for good."> > acknowledged that in the past some vaccine advocates didn't> like to address the claims of opponents, assuming any discussion of> what was seen as views from the fringe was counterproductive. But the> Web 2.0 universe requires a new strategy, he suggested.> > "In the past that could work, but it's not going to work anymore. You> could ignore it and not discuss it and perhaps it would eventually> peter out. But now there are ways for people with these viewpoints to> communicate with each other," he said.> > "These sites are now providing people with a mechanism by which they> can bypass the conventional filters and get their messages out. It can> be dangerous. The Internet is valueless in that respect.">