Showing posts with label Social Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media. Show all posts

Saturday, 28 September 2019

Vaccine Extremism, Hate Speech, and the Well-Beaten Path Towards Genocide

Vaccine Extremism, Hate Speech, and the Well-Beaten Path Towards Genocide:

Dehumanizing and violent messages -- now rampant within social media and mainstream news outlets -- targeting those exercising their Constitutionally protected health freedoms, bear concerning resemblance to previous phases of human history marred by genocide.


Views 10223

Dehumanizing and violent messages -- now rampant within social media and mainstream news outlets -- targeting those exercising their Constitutionally protected health freedoms, bear concerning resemblance to previous phases of human history marred by genocide. 
“If you don’t vaccinate your child I will coward punch it if it comes near me.”
“If you don’t vaccinate your child I will coward punch it if it comes near me.” 
Whether paid pharma trolls or actual persons, the comments made by those in the screenshots above are directed against a real parent and, it is safe to say, are intended to intimidate and dehumanize anyone exercising their Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights to abstain from vaccination for religious or philosophical reasons (rights which, recently, have been lost in states like California, New York, and Maine). 
In another gesture of violence, screenshotted below, Tim Goldstein says: “I’ll break your fucking jaw you dumb “b*tch. Vaccinate your fukxin kids.”

Fine, Arrest, Imprison, and Hang the "Anti-Vaxxers" 

These social media comments bring into high relief a concerning pattern already well established throughout mainstream media representations of the vaccine-hesitant or skeptical (so-called “anti-vaxxers”). The mainstream media’s primary funder, of course, is the pharmaceutical industry, which explains why much of the news has been weaponized against those exercising their Constitutionally protected health freedoms, as well as against informed consent and the parent responsibility and right to protect their children. 
For instance, a recent article in the Washington Post is titled, “Anti-vaxxers are dangerous. Make them face isolation, fines, arrests."
Even more egregious, a 2017 Boston Globe op-ed suggested that anti-vaxxers should be hanged. Amazingly, they still haven’t taken their post down, even though it encourages hatred and violence against a minority group. Outlets like the Boston Globe continued onward with concerning rhetoric, including the more recent story headline: "Mounting a ground war against anti-vaxxers"

The Political Apparatus Engages And Reifies The Dehumanizing Rhetoric

But it's not just the media spouting anti-health freedom and dehumanizing messages.  Elected officials, and their staff, are also contributing to the climate of extreme intolerance. Maral Farsi, governor Newsom’s own staff member, recently posted this message to Twitter: 

What does she mean by "oxygen thieves"? According to the Urban dictionary:  "a person so useless on this planet that the mere fact of them breathing is a waste of oxygen." This is not an innocent message; it is a public post made by a public servant.
Who really are the target of so much vociferous animosity? The so-called anti-vaxxers? As Jennifer Margulis once suggested, journalists who use the bigotted term “anti-vaxxer” should replace it in their writing with “vaccine safety advocate” which is a far more accurate description of who is being targeted. But the reality is that this is not a political or anarchistic movement (which even search engines like BING are being programmed to depict as violent). The term “anti-vaxxer,” as the social media comments above show, is most likely to be projected onto those parents -- mostly moms -- who have spoken out about their children’s vaccine injuries, often to deaf ears, and increasingly to those who call them liars, dehumanize them, and now threaten them for sharing their stories to warn others.

"Anti-Vaxxer" is a Slur Intended to Dehumanize and Villify A Minority Group

The concerning examples given above have well-known antecedents in the annals of history. And they fall into a sadly all-too-common pattern of abuse and violence within human history, sometimes referred to as the 10 stages of Genocide...
In the summary above, you’ll see that the treatment of so-called "anti-vaxxers" falls somewhere between stages 6 and 7, as evidenced by states like New York and California where you will be removed from school, or not allowed to ride a public bus, if you do not comply fully with the CDC’s vaccination schedule. 

Are the Unvaccinated Really A Danger To the Vaccinated? 

The disturbing image below (has been alleged) was posted by a mother whose child was pushed away by a pro-vaccine mother who found out she was not vaccinated and in proximity to her vaccinated child. 
Violence of this sort only makes sense when you understand how profoundly people are mislead today. The official narrative is that vaccines are unilterally "safe and effective," and therefore those who are not vaccinated must "spread disease" (i.e. they have no natural immunity or protection without medical intervention). 
Were the "science settled," as commonly claimed, and the act of vaccinating equivalent to bona fide immunity, the increasingly violent rhetoric against those who will not abide by the CDC’s vaccination schedule would at least appear grounded in something other than brutally misinformed opinion or pseudoscience. Were herd immunity attainable through vaccination -- even with an increasingly necessary load of repeat boosters to compensate for the vaccine's failure to generate sustained protection -- as commonly assumed, perhaps the argument that the non-vaccinated represent harm to those who aren’t able to vaccinate would have solid ground. But neither of these are true, in the unequivocal sense of the term. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed, published papers that call into question these assumptions. You can view some of them on our database, for instance. The reality is that it is not failure to vaccinate, but failing vaccines that are presently driving measles oubreaks in this country. Learn more by reading the following articles:

The Larger Context and Action Steps

The pharmaceutical industry, despite controlling much of the mainstream discourse on this subject, is losing traction. Their products are so unappealing, dangerous, and ineffective that the free market forces could not sustain them; their high liability and the costs associated with it had to be underwritten and compensated for by the government (the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986). As RFK Jr. discusses on the California state capitol steps the day health freedom was lost, they’re mandating their products because they know if the truth were revealed en masse no one would rightly administer them to children. 
In a recent article we published on the passing of SB 276 titled, "Welcome to Calipharma: Where Your Children are For Profit and Parental Freedoms are Nonexistent," a salient and foreboding quote bears repeating: 
"They came first for philosophical exemptions and I said nothing, because my kids are in private school. Then they came for religious exemptions and I said nothing, because I am not that kind of religious. Then they came for our medical freedom and I said nothing, because I could still home school. Then they came for me and took my children. And no one was left to speak up."
- Lavenda Memory
The latest Gallup poll shows that of all industries polled the pharmaceutical industry is lowest on the list for consumer trust. The times are a-changing. People are waking up to the truth -- which, incidentally, is why there is such a powerful, global attempt to censor dissenting voices and independent media outlets like our own. Please help us spread awareness by sharing our content, signing up for our newsletter, and consider becoming a member, or making a one-time donation. And please sign up for updates with the new non-profit health freedom advocacy portal: Stand for Health Freedom (501c4).
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Wednesday, 24 July 2019

Facebook can help college students with lower confidence build relationships

Facebook can help college students with lower confidence build relationships

 Facebook can help first-semester college students maintain relationships with high school friends and assist them in creating new friendships, according to new research from Binghamton University, State University of New York.


Newswise — BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — Facebook can help first-semester college students maintain relationships with high school friends and assist them in creating new friendships, according to new research from Binghamton University, State University of New York. When it comes to making new friends, those with higher confidence in their social skills have less to gain from relying on Facebook, while people with lower confidence in their social skills have more to gain from a reliance on the social media platform.

“Transitioning from high school to college can be stressful for many students. To help them adjust to life in college, it is critical for them to maintain connections with pre-college friends and to form new relationships,” said Surinder Kahai, associate professor of management information systems at Binghamton University’s School of Management.

For the study, Kahai and fellow researcher, SUNY College at Old Westbury’s Yu Lei, focused on first-semester college students by surveying undergraduate college students, mostly sophomores, about their experiences with different channels used to maintain and grow relationships.

Accounting for Facebook’s effect on relationships versus the impact of more traditional media (face-to-face interaction, phone calls, etc.), researchers also incorporated how each student’s social self-efficacy (confidence in their social skills) affected the use of both Facebook and traditional media to build and maintain relationships.

“You’ve known your high school friends for a long time. You’re not shy in front of them and you can act naturally,” said Kahai. “But when it comes to making new friends in college, your ability to be social and open yourself up to new people will matter. If you have low self-efficacy, you may need to rely more on social media to make up for less face-to-face interaction.”

In terms of how “best” to use Facebook to maintain and build new relationships, some of the findings include:
  • Facebook can compensate for the lower use of traditional media to maintain relationships with close friends from high school.
  • Facebook works best when supplementing traditional media when it comes to making new college friends.
  • Students with high self-efficacy have more to gain from prioritizing traditional media over Facebook when making new college friends.
  • Students with low self-efficacy have more to gain from prioritizing Facebook use over traditional media when making new college friends.
Kahai said the findings are relevant to university officials and counselors helping new students adjust to college life.

“New college students often stress about trying to maintain their high school friendships while struggling to develop new ones. These findings can help counselors advise students on how to balance the use of social media and traditional media to enhance their new and older friendships,” said Kahai.

Kahai believes that any long-distance relationship can be maintained with the right use of media, which served as some of his motivation to conduct this study.

“If there is an intent to continue the relationship, you can make it happen. Whether you use phone calls, snail mail or Facebook, if you want to maintain a relationship, you can,” he said.

And with the growing presence of social media in the lives of college students, Kahai recommends to stop focusing on the “is social media good or bad?” debate.

“It’s here, it’s not going away. It’s a part of society now,” said Kahai. “The results of our study suggest that instead of asking whether or not Facebook builds relationships and social capital, we should be focusing on finding the conditions in which it does.”

The study, “Building social capital with Facebook: Type of network, availability of other media, and social self-efficacy matter,” was published in International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
e MRI to Understand

Friday, 7 December 2018

Developing Tools to Combat ‘Fake News’

Developing Tools to Combat ‘Fake News’:

Identifying Fake News and eliminating it, is finally being addressed!


 In order to combat this issue, tools and practices need to be developed to help consumers and journalists filter the information they are constantly being fed.


Article ID: 703776
Released: 12-Nov-2018 9:50 AM EST
Source Newsroom: Society for Risk Analysis (SRA)


Newswise — With news coverage being a constant cycle and information being amplified across social media channels, it can be difficult to discern between sound news and ‘fake news.’ As a result people’s trust in scientific information has begun to break down. This is especially harmful to society when the mass dissemination of misinformation, especially as it relates to issues such as climate change, is problematic as it may contribute to the delay of much needed policy action to protect the public. In order to combat this issue, tools and practices need to be developed to help consumers and journalists filter the information they are constantly being fed.

Fake news has become a growing problem nationwide and its spread has been aided and exacerbated by social media, particularly Facebook. Lauren Lutzke, University of Michigan, and her team of researchers tested a simple intervention aimed to help people recognize fake climate news on Facebook.

In the study, “Structured introspection: Can a simple intervention help people identify fake news about climate change on Facebook?” online participants were presented with a post from a Facebook newsfeed containing false information about climate change and were placed in one of three treatment (T) groups. In T1, participants were asked to think carefully about the information they were about to receive and to evaluate its accuracy. In T2, people were asked to rate the importance of five attributes of online news, including credibility of the source and plausibility of the information, that may be indicative of whether the information is reliable or not, and T3 mirrored T2 except that participants were asked to propose between two and five diagnostic attributes of their own.
The researchers hypothesized that structured introspection, the T2 method, would help people identify fake news. This study will help build an understanding of what helps people reject fake news and could help combat its spread.

Previous research has suggested that in the wake of a terror attack, public fear and anger can each uniquely contribute to risk perception and risk-avoidance behaviors. However, this research has not sought to understand how physical and temporal proximity to the attack impact an individual’s expression of fear and anger. Richard John and Matt Baucum, University of Southern California, conducted a study to better understand how a terror event can incite fear and anger at various locations, and how those feelings change with time.

These results show that individuals who are physically distant from the attack remained angry and fearful for a longer duration after the attack compared to those in and around Orlando whose feared dissipated more quickly. John and Baucum will discuss the implications for understanding the emotional landscape that results from highly publicized terror attacks.
News coverage of scientific and medical studies that provide convincing evidence about technological and health risks generally increase public concern, but research has shown that subsequent news coverage that criticizes these same studies or publicizes their retraction can reduce those initial concerns. Dilshani Sarathchandra, University of Idaho, and Aaron McCright, Michigan State University, conducted some follow-up research to determine if these retractions have broader impacts, such as reducing people’s trust in the institutions and individuals (i.e., science and scientists) who are supposed to minimize environmental and health risks.

The study, “The effects of media coverage of scientific retractions on trust in science,” examined how trust in scientists was shaped by exposure to news coverage of the retraction of a stem cell study. Preliminary findings show that being exposed to the news coverage does reduce trust and negative effects on trust are even larger for retractions due to “intentional misconduct.”

The results suggest that journalists and publishers should be more aware of these effects when reporting on retractions and should clarify the reason for retraction (honest mistakes vs. intentional misconduct). Clarifying the reasoning can influence how journalists cover the stories, and how the public perceives the news. Making this distinction can also help destigmatize retractions due to honest mistakes which could increase trust in the scientific community.

These studies will be presented during the From AI to Fake News: Media & Emerging Risks session on Tuesday, Dec. 4 from 1:30-3:00 p.m. at the 2018 Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) Annual Meeting at the New Orleans Marriott in New Orleans, Louisiana.

**Dilshani Sarathchandra, University of Idaho, Richard John, University of Southern California, and Lauren Lutzke, University of Michigan, will be available for media interviews at the 2018 SRA Annual Meeting. Please contact Melanie Preve at melanie@bigvoicecomm.com for all interview requests.

###
About SRA
The Society for Risk Analysis is a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, scholarly, international society that provides an open forum for all those interested in risk analysis. SRA was established in 1980 and has published Risk Analysis: An International Journal, the leading scholarly journal in the field, continuously since 1981. For more information, visit www.sra.org.

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

Do Parents Share Too Much About Their Kids on Social Media?

When I saw this article I was alarmed to say the least.  In these days of dangers lurking everywhere, on Social Media and out in the world, the watchword for parents needs to be caution.  Sharing too much information can put your children in danger.

“Sharenting” Trends: Do Parents Share Too Much About Their Kids on Social Media?