VALIDITY TASK- LEVEL 2 BIO 2.2
Rosalind Walker
ARTICLE 1
Title:
Vaccine Dangers
Author:
Vaccine Dangers was written by Ken Adachi, an extreme anti-vaccination advocate and editor of “educate-yourself.org", a blog on which he expresses his opinion on a number of topics from how to treat parasites, to aliens invading the world. He has no known credentials or reliability to his name. The article was written on October 6th 2013 and updated July 22nd 2015. He obviously wants to gain popularity and spread his “knowledge” among like-minded people, or to convince others to agree with his logic. Ken Adachi is a potential pseudonym for a Canadian writer who goes by the same name but died a number of decades ago. This makes his cases even less believable and him as a source of information far more unreliable. His opinions are severely biased as he has a completely one-sided opinion on vaccination and provides no real scientific evidence to support his arguments. He does have a vested interest as his argument will benefit himself for both blog traffic and because the blog is about alternate medicines. If people are convinced by this article, they are more likely to invest in alternate forms of medicinal aid, which will benefit him. This tells us he has a hidden agenda in writing the piece and makes him less of a reliable source.
Target Audience:
His target audience is parents trying to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children. He expresses, “Don’t allow your child to go on the chopping block for these Liars and their profit margins.” He expresses the hidden “dangers” of immunisation and tries to convince his audience that vaccination is a scam and instead damaging to a child’s health rather than helping the child. The article is likely to make the parents question the legitimacy of vaccination and may even convince them not to vaccinate their children. His article is dramatic and over exaggerated but could be believable to someone how has an incomplete understanding of vaccinating their children. The article is likely to have an impact on the general public due to its inflated nature. The run-on effect of this could be that parents decide not to vaccinate their children, thus putting other children in danger of becoming ill. Because his target audience is indecisive parents, his article is likely to sway the opinions of some.
Biological statements:
Adachi’s article is supposedly backed up by scientific research by Dr Andrew Moulden. Moulden has written a book titled, “Dr Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm”. When he was alive, Moulden would make videos trying to convince the public of the “bodily harm” of vaccination. Moulden, who specialises in pseudoscience claimed several academic degrees, of which a medical degree is included however was not licensed to practice medicine and even has a restraining order to keep him away from major medical conferences. A quote from him is, “Science can never replace common sense and your own powers of direct observations”. He relies completely on anecdotal evidence and refuses to submit any of his biological ideas to any form of scrutiny, proving that is work is more a case of pseudoscience than anything other . Moulden, who has since passed away, believed that “vaccines create blockage and ‘sludging’ of blood flow”. Vaccination is the process of introducing a small, weaker dosage of an illness to the body. This allows the body to produce antibodies to attack the specific antigens of the new virus before the pathogen takes over the immune system and the individual becomes unwell. This means, upon a second, more serious infection, the immune system will be able to deal with it with ease and efficiency as it already has a learnt response towards the virus and does not have to waste time trying to create antibodies. This process has no correlation to blood flow in the body, meaning it is impossible for the vaccination to create blockage or “sludge” to the flow of blood through the body. Vaccinations are usually always harmless to the body and are instead beneficial to the individual. Rare cases where the body does not react well to the vaccination and instead becomes ill instead of getting better are scarce and infrequent. However, Adachi refers to a documentary produced by “investigative film maker Gary Null” who claims that one in fifty children in the USA is autistic. This is also a form of incorrect scientific knowledge as the US government estimates that one in sixty-eight are legitimately autistic. This shows that Adachi is twisting evidence to suit his arguments, so his argument on the subject is invalid. Moulden’s “biological evidence” lacks in correct or legitimate scientific knowledge or research. Moulden is known for his radicalised approach to vaccination which has rubbed off on the author of “Vaccine Dangers”, Ken Adachi. Adachi’s complete reliance on only one source shows that his argument is one-sided and unreliable. The scientific evidence provided by Adachi is insignificant and inaccurate. I do not believe the scientific information in the article as Adachi’s opinion seems heavily biased and incorrect in terms of scientific proofs.
Significance of information in decision making:
Adachi claims, in his article that “The LIES and misinformation about vaccine benefits from the pharmaceutical…”. This direct and exaggerated approach to the issue at hand could be convincing to his audience. This aspect of information could have serious repercussions on his audience as it may convince them that the pharmaceutical industry is in fact trying to gain problem. This will influence their decision making and is likely to convince them that vaccinating their children is not going to benefit their child at all. However, most vaccinations are free for children under the age of 18 in New Zealand especially so many need to realise that instead of it being a “scam”, it is a legitimate medical aid for citizens which is more likely to benefit their child than not. However, Adachi makes a convincing point, claiming the industry is full of “Liars and their profit margins”. This could have an impact on the parents that the article is targeting as they are likely to be uninformed and indecisive. Little do they know that coming to this source will provide them with misinformation and extreme bias. The article, although seemingly unbelievable, is also persuasive and convincing and could have an impact on the opinions of Adachi’s audience. His language is blunt and he tells his version of the truth which could be appealing to some readers and would make his argument more believable. However, using a small amount of research and general knowledge, it is evident that the article is incorrect and extremely one-sided. He calls himself one of a group of “legitimate critics”, who are supposedly telling the truth about vaccination, “regardless of academic or professional credentials” of which are very few.
Inaccuracies and bias’ impact on public:
The inaccuracy of this article could have an impact on the public due to its exaggerated and incorrect scientific evidence, however as it is published on a blog on the internet, it is unlikely to gather a huge amount of publicity. It will have an effect on a small group of individuals but, fortunately, is unlikely to reach an extensive audience. However, the impact of the incorrect, “bad” science in the text is that it could be believable and cause some parents to no longer support legitimate medical ideologies, such as immunising their children. This is likely to have not only significant long-term health issues with their children, but also the children around their own. Not vaccinating a child is not only putting the child at risk but also all others that surround him or her. The incorrect scientific information provided in the article affects not only the reader, but many others around them. The one-sided opinion given by the author, Ken Adachi, is both biased and inaccurate. The article has proven itself to be an illegitimate and invalid source of information, offering only the opinion of one individual and providing incorrect and bad scientific research.
Bibliography
http://educate-yourself.org (accessed 3/07)
en.wikipedia.org (accessed 4.07)
www.plunket.org.nz (accessed 4.07)
rationalwiki.org (accessed 5.07)
cdc.gov (accessed 6.07)
ARTICLE 2
Title:
Herd Immunity: Three Reasons Why I Don't Vaccinate My Children… And Why Vaccine Supporters Shouldn't Care That I Use Vaccine Exemption Forms
Author:
The author of the article goes by the name of “The People’s Chemist”; his real name is Shane Ellison. Ellison is an ex-pharmaceutical chemist with a degree in organic chemistry. He claims to “help people ditch their meds so they can live a healthier, more active lifestyle.” He is the father of 4 “healthy unvaccinated children” and has written a book titled “Over-The-Counter Natural Cures”. He is strongly anti-vaccination and instead believes in and profits from a business run by himself where he sells natural remedies as a form of alternative medicine. Ellison supposedly has more than one degree in science, in Biology and Organic Chemistry. After abandoning his life as a pharmaceutical chemist, Ellison has expressed his disbelief in multiple proven scientific notions. The article is written to “inform” the audience of the dangers of unnecessary vaccination.
Ellison shows an obvious vested interest in writing the article. He sells a range of “high end, natural products” as well as a book he has published. His vested interest is evident throughout the article as he tries to direct the focus of the reader to the possible “natural cures” that he has discovered. He stresses the importance of “Healthy habits” instead of contrived vaccinations to build up an effective immune system. He also tries to convey the importance of vaccine exemption forms, which he claims to have used for years to get his children out of mandatory vaccinations and he encourages his readers to do the same. He advertises his book several times throughout the article, trying to convince parents that natural, alternative medicines are more effective than vaccinations, and that an individual can stay healthy by having better hygiene and nutrition.
“Thanks to better hygiene, sanitation and nutrition, the rates of polio infection had already plummeted as documented in my book ‘Over-The-Counter Natural Cures’”
“The goal is to minimise risk by increasing our immunity, naturally. In ‘Over-The-Counter Natural Cures’, I showed how innate and adaptive immunity act as our God-given protection from biological nasties.”
He advertises for his book, showing his closely related vested interest. By convincing parents not to support vaccination, it is more likely that these influenced parents will become supporters of Ellison’s ‘natural’ remedies, gaining him more revenue and a larger audience. This will benefit him greatly therefore he is more likely to exaggerate or make up his information to make it more convincing and important. This makes the article unreliable and invalid as a source of biological information. He also mentions one of his remedies in the article by saying “Nature’s Immune Booster is Potent Antibiotic”. He sells a natural ‘immune booster’ so if parents are convinced not to vaccinate their children, they may be seeking an alternative form of protection from illness. This advertisement of Ellison’s book and remedies make him a far less credible and reliable source of information.
Target Audience:
The article is aimed at parents deciding whether or not to vaccinate their kids, as well as anyone contemplating vaccination, and buyers of the products sold on the site. The parents visiting sites like this are looking for reasons to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. They will often be indecisive and therefore gullible so this article is likely to sway their opinion, especially as it is coming from a supposedly credible source. Without taking an in-depth look at the credibility of the website, it may seem to be a reliable and legitimately useful site. It also helps that Ellison is a father himself with 4 unvaccinated, healthy children as he is able to relate to his audience as well as it making the readers trust him. The website is used by Ellison as a form of advertising towards a gullible, easily-influenced audience.
Biological Statements:
The article presents the audience with a considerable amount of scientific information. However, the legitimacy of these claims questionable. Ellison claims that, through his own investigative scientific research, he has dispelled many myths around the dangers of not vaccinating.
One thing Ellison repeats throughout the article is the supposed irrelevance of ‘herd immunity’. Ellison stresses that herd immunity is nothing but an ‘antiquated theory’ which is “parrotted by Doctors” and is only a hypothesis rather than a proven scientific ideology. However, it is recognised by many legitimate, reliable sources of scientific information that herd immunity or community immunity is, in fact, a reliable and researched scientific proof. Herd immunity is more than what Ellison tells his audience; it’s an established concept that is recognised by all reputable scientific sources. However, it is likely that Ellison’s words will have his gullible audience believing this outrageous theory. Somehow, he manages to convincingly portray the “illegitimacy” of the theory. However, it is not difficult to prove the legitimacy of the theory as it is backed up by scientific reasoning and proof, neither of which are provided by Ellison.
Ellison also claims that within vaccines are “numerous objectionable ingredients, such as monkey cell and aborted fatal tissue.”
Ellison was not entirely wrong in this case as the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) have disclosed that a few of their vaccines (DTaP-IPV, Polio, small-pox and DTaP-HepB-IPV) have contained or do contain monkey kidney cells. However it is likely that instead of having worrying medical repercussions, these cells are used as cell culture materials to develop the vaccine antigens.
Nowhere in the list of vaccine ingredients is “aborted fatal tissue” or anything similar, howver, it is not unlikely that fatal tissue has been used as a cell culture. However, Ellison has no proof of this backing up his argument.
The phrasing of these facts in the article make it seem far more serious of a matter than it is, almost sinister. Ellison is trying to scare his audience away from vaccines by making them question the effectiveness of the vaccination and its reliability. What the audience is not told is that these possible ingredients in the vaccine are far less harmful than the illness that the vaccination is protecting them against. Ellison phrases his argument to his liking and exaggerates the scientific knowledge behind the claims to gain support from his audience. His biological information, although seemingly accurate is twisted on a way to benefit him. His argument steers the reader in the direction of his own remedies, natural medical methods and no vaccinations. This will benefit him because of his vested interest in csv outcome. Ellison has cherrypicked information to back up his argument. The article contains an extensive amount of bias towards the ideas and opinions of the author.
Ellison also states “At best, vaccines only boost our immune systems/defenses temporarily. That’s because your immune system is programmed to recognise and attack invaders that come through the biological “front door”. That would be your nose, mouth and eyes. It doesn’t work properly when we shove infection into our body with a needle.”
A vaccine contains a weakened or dead dose of a virus or disease which allows the immune system to create antibodies which attach to the specific antigens of the virus. Vaccines allow the immune system to build a resistance to an illness before it is able to take over the whole system. As long as the introduced virus reaches the persons immune system, the body will start to learn an immunity to it. This is done by lymphocytes which produce antibodies to attach to the antigens on the outside layer of the virus. This is called the immune response and once activated for a particular virus, it will create a learn response. The purpose of the vaccination is to create this learnt response so upon a second infection, the body will be able to produce antibodies at a quicker rate as it has already gone through the stage of being created. The actual way that the weakened or dead infection gets into the body is irrelevant. Whether it is through the primary defences or through needle injection, either way will introduce the body to the new virus and allow it to learn the immune response. This statement made by Ellison is biologically incorrect; he is only trying to convince his audience that vaccines are the “bad guys” in this situation. This biological information is incorrect, inaccurate and an example of bad science.
Significance of information in decision making:
As well as what has been previously mentioned, Ellison also presents his audience with more evidence which shows the decrease in illness from natural remedies rather than vaccination. Although it has questionable legitimacy, this information is likely to have a greater impact on the reader’s decision making process as it shows the supposed irrelevance of vaccinations. This tells his indecisive audience that vaccines are unnecessary and harmful rather than helpful. This is significant to the reader is it can sway his or her opinion and influence his/her decision making on whether or not to vaccinate their children.
In the article, Ellison states the “Further research has shown that the historical decline in infectious diseases- that parents are now vaccinating against- were not the result of inoculation like doctors blindly and wrongly assert. Instead, the decline began years before the vaccines were introduced thanks to improved habits of hygiene, sanitation and nutrition that have raised our natural immunity.”
Although he fails to cite the research he is referring to, these statements are seemingly believable and are likely to have a significant impact on the public.
He also mentions the ‘outdatedness’ of vaccinations by saying “I’m not willing to risk my children’s health on the antiquated vaccine theory… nor the toxic brew they contain.”
This is another important aspect of the text as it shows the author to be a caring father to healthy, unvaccinated children. It shows that children can be safe without vaccination, however, there is an underlying bias in this. It is also common knowledge that vaccination is a theory developed more than 200 years ago, making his statement seem realistic to the reader. It could influence the parent reading the article that vaccination is nothing more than an ‘antiquated theory’.
Inaccuracies and bias’ impact on public:
The exaggerated and scientifically ‘researched’ content in the article is likely to have a significant impact on the public. The website it is published on sells natural remedies and so the article has a significant bias and is used as a form of advertising for the author, “The People’s Chemist”. The science in the article, although not entirely inaccurate at times, is over exaggerated and strongly biased. There is evident vested interest, causing this bias. The inaccuracies and bias are likely to have a negative impact on the public as it could sway the opinion of an undecided parent and would convince them not to vaccinate their child. This would have a large effect on the population as it lowers the support of vaccination and therefore lowers the amount of children being vaccinated, subsequently causing a drop in immunity across a population and causes many children to become susceptible to disease or serious illness. As it is a well known site, the website that the article is published on is likely to get a lot of traffic making it likely that the article will be read by many. The information in the article is severely biased and exaggerated but also persuasive and convincing. If the reader chose to believe the inaccurate, unreliable, “bad” science in the article, they will likely choose not to vaccinate their child. Although the article is laced with bias and is used as a form of advertising, it is likely that some will believe it and choose not to vaccinate. Therefore, this article will be making a significant negative impact on the public.
Bibliography
thepeopleschemist.com
cdc.gov
immune.org.nz
fda.gov
howdovaccinescauseautism.com
ARTICLE 3
Title:
Are vaccines safe to give to children?
Author:
The article is written by Katie Forster, a health correspondent for Independent, a British news outlet. Although only a journalist, it is obvious Forster has done her homework for writing the article. She has no known medical credentials but is instead an established journalist. The article was published on 11th May 2017, so it is a recent, up-to-date article. The purpose of the article was to dispel some of the myths around vaccines and to provide logical, research-based information about vaccination. She is unlikely to be a biased author as she has seemingly no vested interest in the topic and is a trusted journalist. There is no immediately obvious bias in the article as she old provides factual information and never her own opinion.
Target Audience:
The target audience of the article is unclear as the article appears to be aimed at anyone coming to the internet to seek answers on whether or not to vaccinate. The people coming online to look for information on vaccination are likely to be influenced easily by the information presented to them and it is likely that some won’t have an exisiting knowledge of vaccines. The article is written for those wishing to gain further knowledge about vaccination from a source which is reliable and unbiased. The title of the article refers to the vaccination of children, so it is likely to be appealing to parents trying to make a decision about whether or not to vaccinate their children.
Biological statements:
The article states “It’s common to feel tired, sore and as if you're coming down with a cold after having a vaccination. This is because the immune system is reacting to the weakened or killed virus contained in the vaccine, which leads to immunisation as the body creates antibodies and becomes able to fight a real infection.”; this statement is biologically accurate and correct. The statements have no bias or inaccuracy as they are purely biologically correct. This allows the educated reader to conclude that the rest of the information in the article will be reliable and legitimate. This background on vaccinations is something that most articles skip, although it is important and allows the reader to understand the situation. I believe this biological information in the article as it correlates/responds to my own research on vaccinations. This makes the article valid and reliable.
“Girls aged 12 to 13 are vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV) on the NHS, which protects against cervical cancer- the second most common type of cancer in women under 35. The vaccine used is called Gardasil, which has shown to be safe by several studies, some involving more than a million women, that closely monitored side effects and adverse events.”
The article is backed up with clear biological evidence like this. This excerpt I know to be correct as after research on HPV, I am confident that the information provided is scientifically correct and valid. The author also put a link to the seperate studies, which allows the reader to do his or her own research to verify the claims of the author. This shows her information as reliable and valid.
“Exhaustive scientific research has concluded that no, the measles mumps and rubella vaccine does not cause autism. A comprehensive review of 10 different studies, using data from 1.2 million children, was carried out in 2014 and did not find any relationship between MMR and autism spectrum disorder.”
The statement, although convincingly accurate, lacks to show evidence of the studies and review mentioned and also does not go into scientific depth about the reasoning behind the claim. This makes these statements less valid and reliable. However, the reader is still likely to believe it because of its boldness and believability. I would believe the claim more if it gave a more in-depth look into these studies. The statements need more biological depth behind them to be unquestionably valid and accurate.
“… more than 10 billion doses of Oral Polio Vaccination, which contains a weakened vaccine- virus that can multiply in the gut, spreading immunity between people.”
Although simplified, the information given in the article about the OPV vaccination is biologically correct. For a few weeks after being vaccinated, the vaccine will replicate in the intestine and the immunity from this able to be passed on to others in close contact. This makes the article more valid as it has valid biological information. I believe the statement to be correct as it correlates to the research I have done on Oral Polio Vaccinations. The information given in this statement is accurate and unbiased, as well as reliable and valid to the article.
Significance of information in decision making:
The most important parts of this article are the information about what a vaccine is, if it’s safe and what side effects/illnesses it can cause. These are more important to the article as they are most significant in the reader’s life. They are also the most crucial in the decision making process of the reader as they provide him or her with the information necessary for the reader to make an informed decision on whether or not to have their child vaccinated. The side effects information has the greatest impact on the reader’s decision making process as they directly affect the individual the greatest. Other important information includes autism information and myths, vaccination conspiracy theories and whether or not a childhood be vaccinated; they all affect the reader’s decision making.
Inaccuracies and bias’ impact on public:
Overall, this article should have a positive effect on the public/audience. The biological information presented in the article is accurate, unbiased and valid. With more research into the biological information in the article, it is clear that it is well-researched and correct. Thi will have a positive effect on the public as they are reading legitimate, correct information and are able to establish their own opinions without being swayed by a bias. The result of this is that the reader has gained an insight on vaccines and will be able to make educated decisions on vaccinations. The author is unlikely to make any personal gains from the article as it is intended to educate rather than to advertise. The article’s information is accurate and unbiased, allowing it to have a positive impact on the public.
Bibliography
independent.co.uk
polioeradication.org
who.int
cdc.gov
katieforster.com