Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Becca Stareyes ([info]beccastareyes) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2010-01-23 13:02:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Voter Fraud and Internet Popularity in 140 Characters or Less
The Shorty Awards is a contest to select the best of Twitter in certain topics... by encouraging folks to tweet (or post their votes via Twitter) their votes, where the top five will go on to judging. Yeah, you can tell this will end well. One of the awards is for Health (or #health -- the hashtags on Twitter let you search for certain topics).

Anyway, this seems to be shaping up into a wankstorm. Not really because of the health issues themselves, though that plays a part, but mostly the standard of 'cheating, vote solicitation, and conspiracies'. The nominal issue is whether the Science-Based Medicine (SBM) or the Alternative Medicine (alt-med) should take the Shorty, but... well, it stops being about the medicine and more about which side wins.

The Cast
Science-Based Medicine/Skeptic Movement
Dr. Rachael Dunlop/@DrRachie -- Skeptical podcaster and heart-disease researcher on Twitter.
Orac -- Cancer surgeon, vaccination advocate, and medical blogger.
PZ Myers -- Skeptic, atheist and biologist, known for 'pharyngulizing' internet polls, which basically means posting links to informal internet polls on religion, science and so on, with the intent that his readers will push them in unexpected directions.
Tim Farley -- Vaccine advocate and blog commenter.

Alternative Medicine
Joseph Mercola/@mercola -- Osteopath and webmaster of a natural health site.
Mike Adams/@HealthRanger -- Webmaster of NaturalNews.com, an alt-med news site with a bit of a reputation for conspiracy-mongering.

Going to apologize - I follow Orac's blog, so most of my commentary is from there.


Anyway, so the Shorty Awards are humming along, with HealthRanger/Adams in first place, DrRachie in second, and Mercola in third. The skeptical/SBM blogosphere gets a hold of things, and advocates voting for DrRachie, since she seems to be the best candidate to overtake Adams. Especially since Adams is rather disliked in the skeptical blogosphere, as this quote from Orac shows:

At the time of my writing this, it's that über-quack of quacks, that despicable ghoul for whom there is no such thing as sinking too low in the service of promoting quackery, Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com.


Anyway, so the word spreads out to vote for DrRachie, and to give silly informal nominations to people you don't like. Adams and Mercola continue to advocate for voting for themselves -- pretty much business as usual for these things.

Then folks start noticing some foul play. Commenter #17 on Orac's blog post, Tim Farley, notices something fishy. Since linking to comment threads on scienceblogs is a pain in the ass, I reproduce it here.

All of the voting in this contest is on Twitter and therefore public, of course, so some of us have been digging into the votes that Mike Adams has been getting. We've found a large number of accounts like this:

[list of six twitter accounts]

...where clearly the ONLY purpose for that Twitter account is to vote for Mike Adams. I estimate that 10% to 20% of his vote total consists of accounts like this.

Fortunately there are (quite reasonably) rules against this. I encourage people to write to info@shortyawards.com and point out that they should remove these votes from the total before the nominations are over.

The good news is the votes aren't the only thing that determines the winner. There's a panel of judges too. But if he doesn't win, I predict Mike Adams will accuse the awards committee of collusion with Big Pharma to suppress his votes.


The awards insist that all votes be from active accounts created before the date of votes started, so using votes like this doesn't count. On the other hand, it will mean some poor smuck at the Shorty Awards has to go through and screen out these things.

Anyway, the Shorty Awards judges investigate, and Adams/HealthRanger is disqualified. And, well, it's apparently all a conspiracy by the vaccine and pharmaceutical industry, and that he and his readers are totally innocent.

It wasn't really surprising to see the vaccine quacks engaging in their false accusations, of course: Lying and cheating is par for the course for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industries. Their supporters apparently reflect that same lack of ethical behavior. They will apparently do anything to win, even if it means engaging in widespread false accusations and trying to get natural health people removed from the contest altogether.


And, also the Shorty Awards are also at fault:

In investigating this issue, I also learned that the Shorty Awards actually encourages defamatory attacks, slanderous accusations and profanity as part of their voting process. They do this by ignoring their responsibility to police and remove such unprofessional behavior on the part of candidates and voters. The vaccine-pushing candidate now "winning" the Shorty Awards in the health category has text on her website that says, "If water has memory, then homeopathy is full of shit."


But, really, See How Loudly I Don't Care?

In the end, I suppose winning a Shorty Award wasn't really such a big deal. We don't need recognition from some tiny website to legitimize our existence on the 'net. But seeing how the Shorty Awards engages in outright vote fraud while rigging the awards just goes to prove, once again, how supporters of pharmaceutical medicine lie and cheat their way into getting what they want -- ethics be damned!


Of course, that doesn't stop him from telling his readers to vote for Mercola. Or his readers from giving DrRachie nominations like:

"I nominate DrRachie for a Shorty Award in #health because... She;s part of a scam"
"...because she represents Big Phrama and shows how corrupt it is"
"..because she is the puppet who you want to win instead of Mike Adams."

Which she was kind enough to include in the comments of Orac's second post, gloating about this and mocking Adams.

I swear, this is sometimes why I read Orac's blog -- some of the people who are opposed to him are just over the top wanky. (Sometime I'll dig up the story of a Age of Autism blogger photoshoping Paul Offit eating a baby for Thanksgiving.)


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]beccastareyes
2010-01-25 02:08 pm UTC (link)
I like the bits about promotion of vaccines paired with denial of the immune system. If it shows that Adams just made most of it up by looking at what skeptics yell at him for, and trying to guess what they think. So because skeptics tell him that 'immune-boosting' things: a) haven't been shown to work, and b) aren't always a good thing if they did work, given auto-immune disorders, he concludes that they deny the immune system, despite the fact most support vaccination which relies on the immune system to work.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sarracenia
2010-01-25 04:27 pm UTC (link)
That's what's always surprised me about the fact that most these nuts aren't into vaccines - I mean, it's basically preemptively training your bodies' own natural immune system to kill the bugs rather than trying to come up with some kind of magical antiviral drug that just kills the virus. Isn't natural immunity their thing? Hell, if it would convince some of these idiots to immunize their children, I'd slap an "all organic dead viruses" label on the vaccines.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]beccastareyes
2010-01-25 04:52 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, but apparently an active immune system means you never get sick even if you work in a measles ward. Or that getting the disease 'naturally' is better*. Or the mercury/aluminum/squalene/antifreeze/'toxins'/evil Pharma-chemicals cause autism, which is way worse than dying from measles. And no one ever dies from flu/chicken pox/childhood diseases. And vaccines didn't stop polio and smallpox, sanitation did. Or that a couple of shots at once and a dozen or two over childhood strains the immune system, despite the immune-boosting stuff and all the other crap kids put in their mouths.

(I am verging into UFB territory here, sorry. I read too much of this crap.)

* Never mind the increase in complications or death.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]khym_chanur
2010-01-25 05:02 pm UTC (link)
I mean, it's basically preemptively training your bodies' own natural immune system to kill the bugs rather than trying to come up with some kind of magical antiviral drug that just kills the virus.

But if you're exposed to the full-blown disease, you're also exposed to tons more of the antigens for a longer period of time, so the immunity you build is stronger and longer lasting! ... Which would be cool and all, if you didn't have a chance of dying, or of living but with permanent damage to your body. And if there wasn't a chance of death or permanent damage, there'd be no point in getting "natural immunity" in the first place.

Now, for diseases where getting it as an adult is worse than getting it as a child, I can sort of see the logic in giving your kid a full blown case while they're still young so they'll have better immunity to it as an adult. But that doesn't apply to constantly mutating things like the flu

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]keri
2010-01-25 09:36 pm UTC (link)
Now, for diseases where getting it as an adult is worse than getting it as a child, I can sort of see the logic in giving your kid a full blown case while they're still young so they'll have better immunity to it as an adult.

I've heard that argument about chicken pox a lot, mostly from people who don't want to go through the effort of taking their kid to get the shot (and much less often recently - or else I'm just around fewer parents with kids in the appropriate age range than I was ten years ago). But those people always seem to forget that chicken pox can lead to shingles in adulthood, which sucks majorly. Better to get the vaccine, with a lower risk of developing shingles later, than to bear with a mild case of the pox. My little sister, poor thing, had two mild cases of chicken pox when she was nine, and a few months later developed a mild case of shingles. (I think she must have got every single variation of the chicken pox virus at some point, because I remember having at least four different outbreaks.) She probably would have greatly benefited from the vaccine, but I think it wasn't yet part of the routine series when she was little.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Thoughts on yao-err, chicken pox.
[info]feenix
2010-01-26 12:40 am UTC (link)
Not only that, depending on her age, the vaccine might not have even existed. I believe that I contracted chicken pox when I was...nine? Ten? Somewhere around that. I'm 25, and I believe that the vaccine was approved in 1995 or something like that. And I don't think it became widespread until the 2000's.

The more you know.

Your sister developed shingles at nine, though? That's weird. Usually, that's something that happens closer to thirty-nine.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thoughts on yao-err, chicken pox.
[info]keri
2010-01-26 01:02 am UTC (link)
Ah, yeah, she was born in '86, so it would've been awfully early. For some reason, I've been under the impression that the vaccine started to be used around 1992.

And, definitely weird about the shingles, but that's what it was. It was a small patch near her temple, I think? or else that was where she had a nasty pox and the shingles patch was near her elbow. I always thought it was because she'd had so many chicken pox outbreaks that the virus for shingles got an early activation. She was really miserable for about a month.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thoughts on yao-err, chicken pox.
[info]feenix
2010-01-26 06:07 am UTC (link)
Just checked. (Oddly enough, this wank happened to jog my memory w/r/t that - I was looking at the timelines for the Jenny McCarthy Death Clock or what have you.) Technically, it's been around since 1988 in Japan and Korea, but it was first approved in the US in 1995.

The times do line up, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]v_digitalwytch
2010-01-26 09:59 am UTC (link)
The chicken pox vaccine didn't exist during my vaccination years, and I never got it which had my parents worried that I'd catch it when I was older. Odd thing was when I had to get my proof of vaccinations thing for the clinicals part of the classes I'm taking, since there was no timely way for me to even begin to track down my old records, I went the tiler route and tested I had adequate antibodies for chicken pox.

Guess somewhere over the years I was exposed enough for it and just never had it full blown.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]caffeine_fairy
2010-01-26 02:12 pm UTC (link)
ON top of which, any disease, no matter how mild, which elevates your body temperature risks brain damage. We have kids at work who suffered brain injury as a result of rubella. It'a rare, but it does happen.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cmdr_zoom
2010-01-26 10:18 pm UTC (link)
This happened to me when I was vaccinated (for smallpox, I think) as a toddler - at least the fever part for sure. I'd started talking, and afterward, I stopped for a while. Scared my parents liek whoa.

Maybe I do have some brain damage as a result; I'll probably never know. I put it down with questions like "what if I wasn't firstborn?" - good for fun but ultimately pointless speculation.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map