The “collectively autocatalytic” nature of mass self-delusion is in evidence here. The authors have clearly never researched the most basic inconvenient truths about vaccines, they simply parrot their preferred authority figures. Lack of insight is everywhere in the “public health” establishment, which has its own dynamic and its own interests, independent of underlying realities. It simply colonizes whatever medium is available to it. That’s how an organic process like corruption functions and grows.
Naturally, much of the same applies to the OTHER side, at least among those who have a healthy distrust of this eugenical regime but don’t have the time to do the research themselves: they rely on a different set of authority figures. The difference is only one of funding and the distributed nature of the newly available medium of peer-to-peer social networking.
It’s always dangerous to trust strangers, but you can at least try to analyze their motivations (which could be based on altruism, profit or job security). On that basis alone, the volume of the message tends to be inversely related to its credibility. This is obviously the case with the MSM: the size and complexity of CNN’s financial entanglements and revenue streams inhibits their willingness to rock the boat. Alex Jones on the other hand, for all his faults, has his own home-cooked business independent of the establishment, which supports his heart-felt and justified sermonizing that this country is in a hell of a lot of trouble because of the likes of CNN. His business is motivated by his sense of altruism, not the other way around.
This is why empathy is so subversive, it bypasses all the skinner boxes which constitute and catalyze the toxic establishment.
Vaccine misinformation and social media
People exposed to vaccine content on social media more likely misinformed than those exposed to it on traditional media
People who rely on social media for information were more likely to be misinformed about vaccines than those who rely on traditional media, according to a study of vaccine knowledge and media use by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
The study, based on nationally representative surveys of nearly 2,500 U.S. adults, found that up to 20% of respondents were at least somewhat misinformed about vaccines. Such a high level of misinformation is “worrying” because misinformation undermines vaccination rates, and high vaccination rates are required to maintain community immunity, the researchers said.
The study, published in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, was conducted in the spring and fall of 2019, when the United States experienced its largest measles outbreak in a quarter century. Between the two survey periods, 19% of the respondents’ levels of vaccine misinformation changed in a substantive way – and within that group, almost two-thirds (64%) were more misinformed in the fall than in the spring.
Media consumption patterns helped to explain the change in misinformation levels, the researchers found. Those respondents who reported increased exposure to information about measles and the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine on social media were more likely to grow more misinformed about vaccines. By contrast, those people who reported an increased exposure to news accounts about those topics in traditional media were more likely to grow less misinformed about vaccines.
“People who received their information from traditional media were less likely to endorse anti-common vaccination claims,” said lead author Dominik Stecula, a postdoctoral fellow in the science of science communication program at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC). He co-authored the study with Ozan Kuru, another APPC postdoctoral fellow, and APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson.
The result is consistent with research suggesting that social media contain a fair amount of misinformation about vaccination while traditional media are more likely to reflect the scientific consensus on its benefits and safety, according to the Annenberg researchers.
‘Worrying’ levels of vaccine misinformation
The researchers found that:
- 18% of respondents mistakenly say that it is very or somewhat accurate to state that vaccines cause autism;
- 15% mistakenly agree that it is very or somewhat accurate to state that vaccines are full of toxins;
- 20% wrongly report that it is very or somewhat accurate to state that it makes no difference whether parents choose to delay or spread out vaccines instead of relying on the official vaccine schedule from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC);
- and 19% incorrectly say it is very or somewhat accurate to state that it is better to develop immunity by getting the disease than by vaccination…..
The researchers said this study suggests that “increasing the sheer amount of pro-vaccination content in media of all types may be of value over the longer term.” They said the findings also underscore the importance of decisions by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Pinterest to reduce or block access to anti-vaccine misinformation.