|
|
Like this article? PLEASE +1 it! |
|
Is There a Vaccine for Social Media?
Written by: Jon HansenArticle Overview: With the upcoming segment "Socially Branded Journalism: Crossing the Generational Divide," in which I talk with Dr. John Tantillo regarding social media and the "personal branding" phenomenon's impact on the difference between opinion and research-based news, one cannot help but consider the ongoing debate regarding vaccination. It is an area in which after considerable personal research I believe remains a complex matter of competing truths and partial-truths where both sides of the issue are to a certain degree obfuscated by self-interest.
![]() |
Free Download - Is supplier incumbency a major problem with government contracting? By Jon Hansen |
Is There a Vaccine for Social Media?
With the upcoming segment "Socially Branded Journalism: Crossing the Generational Divide," in which I talk with Dr. John Tantillo regarding social media and the "personal branding" phenomenon's impact on the difference between opinion and research-based news, one cannot help but consider the ongoing debate regarding vaccination.
It is an area in which after considerable personal research I believe remains a complex matter of competing truths and partial-truths where both sides of the issue are to a certain degree obfuscated by self-interest.
Without calling into question the integrity of individual parties said
interests are represented by contradictory messages including the
following from Natural News.com, which promotes "Natural Health,
Natural Living, Natural News." Specifically their series of articles
from "Swine Flu Healthcare Mandate for NY Health Care Workers Halted by Judges Restraining Order," to "Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine," which would lead one to conclude that the heralding of vaccination
as a medical breakthrough is little more than an effective PR campaign
to line the pockets of a robber baron oligarchy.
Making seemingly inexhaustible references to other articles and expert studies such as "Does the vaccine matter?" by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, which Natural News proclaimed
"isn't just brilliant . . . but stands as the best article on flu
vaccines that has ever been published in the popular press," cannot
help but grab one's attention.
Certainly the article's authors posses the required credentials that
would warrant the thoughtful consideration of their opinions - Shannon
Brownlee is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation and
the author of Overtreated (2007), while Jeanne Lenzer is an investigative journalist and a frequent contributor to the British medical journal BMJ.
However, as I read the piece, an interesting fact jumped off the
pages relating to what was referred to as the “healthy user effect.”
In the following excerpt from the article, a picture of a medical
establishment bent on keeping the truth from an unwitting public is
presented:
"When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the
Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to
colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent
mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she
got sounded more like doctrine than science."
The story continued "People told me, ‘No good can come of [asking]
this,’” she says. “‘Potentially a lot of bad could happen’ for me
professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from
getting vaccinated, because of course, ‘We know that vaccine works.’
This was the prevailing wisdom."
Against this ominous backdrop of establishment intimidation, Dr.
Jackson pushed forward in her quest for the truth "to determine whether
the mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated
might be caused by a phenomenon known as the healthy user effect.”
The basis or starting point for the study was to prove the
hypothesis that "on average, people who get vaccinated are simply
healthier than those who don’t, and thus less liable to die over the
short term."
At this stage the alarms for me personally started to sound. A few
months earlier regarding a totally unrelated issue on of all things
public sector procurement policy, I was being interviewed by a reporter
asking me why 85% of all government procurement initiatives fail to
achieve the expected results.
As with vaccination, there are many factors that contribute to the
outcome of failed government policy in this particular area. However
the origins or elemental roots I explained were based on the fact that
bureaucracies have the tendency to decide on a course of action or
outcome and then embark on a research strategy that is ultimately
shaped to fit the desired conclusion or hypothesis. In other words the
focus is on proving the conclusion rather than determining the true
facts.
While some might suggest that the accepted process is to establish
an hypothesis and then use research to either prove or disprove its
veracity, one cannot ignore the fact that such an exercise can be
easily derailed when personal opinion or inclinations are introduced
into the equation.
Read a little bit further and you will see what I mean.
Dr. Jackson's research also made the assumption that "People who
don’t get vaccinated may be bedridden or otherwise too sick to go get a
shot. They may also be more likely to succumb to flu or any other
illness, because they are generally older and sicker."
To "test their thesis," the Jackson team "combed through eight years
of medical data on more than 72,000 people 65 and older," examining who
got shots and who didn't. They also looked at the mortality rates
outside of flu season.
The findings were interesting in that outside of flu season,
the"baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was
approximately 60 percent higher" than those who were immunized. This
according to the Jackson team indicated that "healthy people chose to
get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly didn’t or couldn’t." Jackson
concluded that the reduction in mortality credited to the flu vaccine
was actually linked to other circumstances.
But here's the thing, based on current research the H1N1 virus is
not killing the elderly. The highest rate of mortality according to
one research university is with normally healthy children and
adolescents who were not immunized. What impact does this recent
statistic have on the Jackson team's findings re the "Healthy User
Effect?"
On the opposite side of the debate, is a September 2008 post from thelbrb autism news science and opinion blog which references author Arthur Allen's recounting of a tragic story
in which the failure to immunize resulted in permanent lung damage for
a new born who contracted whooping cough during the last trimester of
her mother's pregnancy.
The concern according to the autism blog that led to the mother's
decision not to be immunized was based on the fears associated with the
mercury-laden preservative thimerosal in vaccines, which some theorized
might be linked to autism.
Keeping in mind that this is a blog that is mostly written and
maintained by people who have in many instances a direct and personal
link to someone with autism, such as a parent, the writer actually
lamented the autism community's role in influencing peoples decision to
avoid being immunized. A point that was driven home by the following
excerpt:
....the movement got a huge boost from the controversy over the
mercury-laden preservative thimerosal, which some theorized might be
linked to autism. That link has been disproven—by, if nothing else, the
fact that autism rates remained steady after pediatricians and public
health authorities told manufacturers to stop making
thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines in 1999. But the anti-vaccine
movement has kept going, finding ever new reasons to distrust
immunization.
What these as well as other stories have accomplished is to
demonstrate the fact that long held beliefs on either side of the issue
have created an irresistible force - immovable object scenario that
has only served to polarize the general populace. A populace I might
add, that has come to expect its insights to be delivered through
bite-sized, cursory news reports.
This is of course the blessing and the curse of social media, which
is the perfect receptacle and carrier for headline grabbing sound bites
that generally stimulate a call to action whether justified, or not.
In terms of the H1N1 virus, there are to be certain many other
interesting facets that need to be considered over the weeks, months
and even years ahead. This includes the expectation that the U.S. will
have the ability to produce vaccines domestically by 2011, and the
emergence of cell-based vaccines which will cut production times in
half thereby ensuring a more timely supply.
There is also the need to quantify the generational impact of past
pandemics such as in 1957 when a new strain was introduced, and the
1967 strain which ultimately developed into what we refer to now as the
seasonal variety in terms of its contribution to the present day
mortality shifts.
Finally, we must also look to ourselves, and the individual
consideration we have for one another. According to one poll in
Canada, 60% of respondents indicated that they would still go to work
even if they displayed flu-like symptoms. Of even greater concern is
the fact that 23% of respondents said that they would go into work
despite having the flu. Based on these results some have suggested
mandatory immunization. I prefer good old fashioned thoughtfulness.
In the end, there are no easy answers. However we do need answers
as the ones ultimately caught in the middle of this debate are you, me
and our families.
Or as one respondent to the PI Window on Business Poll that asked the question "is the H1N1 Vaccine Safe?" commented:
"Here in Canada the adjuvanted vaccine is available first and
they say they will get the non-adjuvanted one in a month. They claim we
should not wait for the 2nd one and get the 1st one even though it has
not been fully tested for safety in children! I don't know what to do."
This person is not alone.
Article Tags: british medical journal, calling into question, contradictory messages, expert studies, flu vaccines, frequent contributor, health care workers, history of medicine, investigative journalist, lenzer, medical breakthrough, natural news, new america foundation, partial truths, pr campaign, research fellow, robber baron, shannon brownlee, swine flu, thoughtful consideration
|
About the Author: Jon Hansen RSS for Jon's articles - Visit Jon's website Personal Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jwhansen Click here to visit Jon's website Who will be the supply chain poster child in 5 to 10 years With IBX Purchasing Isnt Just A Business It Is A Way Of Life Guest Post Why Optimization Matters Moving Beyond Price Driven Auctions The Socially Responsible Procurement Practice Moving Beyond Social Consciousness enterprising nonprofits Profile Vendorconsultant fees Value for money |
Related Forum Posts
Share this article with your friends. Fund someone's dream.
Leave a comment below or share on the left and you'll help support entrepreneurs in Africa through our partnership with Kiva. Over $50,000 raised and counting - Please keep sharing! Learn more.
Get advice & tips from famous business
owners, new articles by entrepreneur
experts, my latest website updates, &
special sneak peaks at what's to come!
Remind Me...
10 Golden rules to survive the Global Crisis
The Value of Small Businesses
Email us your ideas on how to make our
website more valuable! Thank you Sharon
from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for
your suggestions to make the newsletter
look like the website and profile younger
entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez.



