 | Remember Brave New World, and Orwell's line about "War is peace"? As I see and hear the narrative being crafted by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and other big media -- and then compare their message to published science, I can't help but think about Orwell -- and how the dominant narrative perverts the facts. |
At the same time, health information at odds with big media's message is being censored by Facebook, Amazon, Pinterest, Yahoo, YouTube and more. Yet those lacking first hand knowledge of this censorship, often don't realize how pervasive the censorship has become.
The big tech companies claim they are merely removing things that are not true -- but Sanjay Gupta, Nina Shapiro and others aligned with those who hold the power are not getting censored -- even when they say things that can be shown to be factually incorrect. Here is a good example.
The big tech companies claim they are merely removing things that are not true -- but Sanjay Gupta, Nina Shapiro and others aligned with those who hold the power are not getting censored -- even when they say things that can be shown to be factually incorrect. Here is a good example.
Dr. Nina Shapiro is a graduate of Harvard Medical School, a division head of a surgery center and she's taught medicine in academic settings. With those credentials -- you'd think there might be some pressure on her to make factually supportable public statements right?
Shapiro is also the author of the book, "Hype" which claims to be a doctor's guide to "...medical myths and exaggerated claims...and how to tell what's real and what's not." It is that tagline by Shapiro that makes me think of Brave New World. Let me explain.
Nina Shapiro exemplifies Brave New World.
My first exposure to Nina Shapiro was when I stumbled upon an article of hers featured on Forbes where she argues that the right to have or refuse an abortion IS a valid personal choice, but the right to have or refuse other medical interventions -- with documented risks is not. She thinks having an abortion which can be definitively linked with ending a specific life is acceptable while refusing a vaccine which has only a theoretical possibility of preventing a disease which if not prevented has only a theoretical chance of hurting someone is not acceptable. Here is a screen shot of the headline of her article:
But Nina has a big problem with her facts. The only justification she offers for why our fundamental right to decide what happens to our own body should be violated is this statement:
"The dissolution of herd immunity...is...contributing to resurgence of...pertussis, measles, tetanus, and diphtheria."
Could a medical doctor who graduated from Harvard really be THAT ignorant?
Tetanus is not a communicable disease.
The vaccine for Diphtheria is a toxoid --- so there is not even a theoretical basis to suggest that it can prevent the spread of the organism that causes diphtheria.
And the published science on the Pertussis vaccine not only provides ZERO evidence that this vaccine prevents the spread of the disease --- in fact it is well documented that people properly vaccinated for pertussis can have and spread the illness -- and often don't show any symptoms!
Tetanus is not a communicable disease.
The vaccine for Diphtheria is a toxoid --- so there is not even a theoretical basis to suggest that it can prevent the spread of the organism that causes diphtheria.
And the published science on the Pertussis vaccine not only provides ZERO evidence that this vaccine prevents the spread of the disease --- in fact it is well documented that people properly vaccinated for pertussis can have and spread the illness -- and often don't show any symptoms!
 |  |
 |  |
| (So only one of the four diseases she mentions -- measles -- is there even a theoretical basis to suggest herd immunity, and we had over 1200 measles cases in the US last year -- and there was not a single death. Measles is not deadly in well-fed populations.) |
I notice a disturbing double standard by some of my scientist and doctor friends when it comes to medical information like this.
When I share information that challenges their perspective (particularly on the subject of vaccines) many look at it only long enough to find a single detail they can point to, to discredit the entire article -- even when the detail might not be central to the evidence being presented. But they take the opposite approach to sources that support what they already believe....like this one I just deconstructed by Nina Shaprio.
But sometimes details really do matter a lot. So I ask you...who is really promoting medical myths and exaggerated claims? (For the record -- here is a screen shot of what Nina wrote:
