Opinion: Tech content needs regulation

Bob O'Donnell

Posts: 17   +1
Staff member
<div class="bbWrapper"><p><img src="https://static.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2018/09/2018-09-04-image-5.jpg"></p>

<p>On the eve of government hearings with the leaders of these tech giants, and in an increasingly harsh environment for the tech industry in general, frankly, it’s fairly likely that some type of government intervention is going to happen anyway. The only real questions at this point are what, how, and when.</p>

<p>Of course, at this particular time in history, the challenges and risks that come with trying to draft any kind of legislation or regulation that wouldn’t do more harm than good are extremely high. First, given the toxic political climate that the US finds itself in, there are significant (and legitimate) concerns that party-influenced biases could kick in—from either side of the political spectrum. To be clear, however, I’m convinced that the issues facing new forms of digital content go well beyond ideological differences. Plus, as someone who has long-term faith in the ability of the democratic principles behind our great nation to eventually get us through the morass in which we currently find ourselves, I strongly believe the issues that need to be addressed have very long-term impacts that will still be critically important even in less politically challenged times.</p>

<p class="side-quote">"I strongly believe the issues that need to be addressed have very long-term impacts that will still be critically important even in less politically challenged times."</p>

<p>Another major concern is that the current set of elected officials aren’t the most digitally-savvy bunch, as was evidenced by some of the questions posed during the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica hearings. While there is little doubt that this is a legitimate concern, I’m at least somewhat heartened to know that there were quite a few intelligent issues raised during those hearings. Additionally, given all the other developments around potential election influencing, it seems clear that many in Congress have been compelled to become more intelligent about tech industry-related issues, and I’m certain those efforts to be more tech savvy will continue.</p>

<p>From the tech industry perspective, there are, of course, a large number of concerns as well. Obviously, no industry is eager to be faced with any type of regulations or other laws that could be perceived as limiting their business decisions or other courses of action. In addition, these tech companies have been particularly vocal about saying that they aren’t publishers and therefore shouldn’t be subject to the many laws and regulations already in place for large traditional print and broadcast organizations.</p>

<p>Clearly, companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google aren’t really publishers in the traditional sense of the word. The problem is, it’s clear now that what needs to change is the definition of publishing. If you consider that the end goal of publishing is to deliver information to a mass audience and do so in a way that can influence public opinion—these companies aren’t just publishers, they are literally the largest and most powerful publishing businesses in the history of the world. Period, end of story.</p>

<p class="side-quote">"If you consider that the end goal of publishing is to deliver information to a mass audience and do so in a way that can influence public opinion—[Facebook, Twitter and Google] aren’t just publishers, they are literally the largest and most powerful publishing businesses in the history of the world."</p>

<p>Even in the wildest dreams of publishing and broadcasting magnates of yore like William Randolph Hearst and William S. Paley, they couldn’t imagine the reach and impact that these tech companies have built in a matter of a just a decade or so. In fact, the level of influence that Facebook, Twitter, and Google now have, not only on American society, but the entire world, is truly staggering. Toss in the fact that that they also have access to staggering amounts of personal information on virtually every single one of us, and the impact is truly mind blowing.</p>

<p>In terms of practical impact, the influence of these publishing platforms on elections is of serious concern in the near term, but their impact reaches far wider and crosses into nearly all aspects of our lives. For example, the return of childhood measles—a disease that was nearly eradicated from the US—is almost entirely due to the spread of scientifically invalid anti-vaccine rhetoric being spread across social media and other sites. Like election tampering, that’s a serious impact to the safety and health of our society.</p>

<p>It’s no wonder, then, that these large companies are facing the level of scrutiny that they are now enduring. Like it or not, they should be. We can no longer accept the naïve thought that technology is an inherently neutral topic that’s free of any bias. As we’ve started to learn from AI-based algorithms, any technology built by humans will include some level of “perspective” from the people who create it. In this way, these tech companies are also similar to traditional publishers, because there is no such thing as a truly neutral set of published or broadcast content. Nor should there be. Like these tech giants, most publishing companies generally try to provide a balanced viewpoint and incorporate mechanisms and fail safes to try and do so, but part of their unique charm is, in fact, the perspective (or bias) that they bring to certain types of information. In the same way, I think it’s time to recognize that there is going to be some level of bias inherent in any technology and that it’s OK to have it.</p>

<p>Regardless of any bias, however, the fundamental issue is still one of influence and the need to somehow moderate and standardize the means by which that influence is delivered. It’s clear that, like most other industries, large tech companies aren’t particularly good at moderating themselves. After all, as hugely important parts of a capitalist society, they’re fundamentally driven by return-based decisions, and up until now, the choices they have made and the paths they have pursued have been enormously profitable.</p>

<p>But that’s all the more reason to step back and take a look at how and whether this can continue or if there’s a way to, for example, make companies responsible for the content that’s published on their platforms, or to limit the amount of personal information that can be used to funnel specific content to certain groups of people. Admittedly, there are no easy answers on how to fix the concerns, nor is there any guarantee that legislative or regulatory attempts to address them won’t make matters worse. Nevertheless, it’s becoming increasingly clear to a wider and wider group of people that the current path isn’t sustainable long-term and the backlash against the tech industry is going to keep growing if something isn’t done.</p>

<p>While it’s easy to fall prey to the recent politically motivated calls for certain types of changes and restrictions, I believe it’s essential to think about how to address these challenges longer term and independent of any current political controversies. Only then can we hope to get the kind of efforts and solutions that will allow us to leverage the tremendous benefits that these new publishing platforms enable, while preventing them from usurping their position in our society.</p>

<p class="grey">Bob O’Donnell is the founder and chief analyst of <a href="http://www.technalysisresearch.com/" target="_blank">TECHnalysis Research, LLC</a> a technology consulting and market research firm. You can follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/bobodtech" rel="author" target="_blank">@bobodtech</a>. This article was originally published on <a href="https://techpinions.com/tech-content-needs-regulation/53580">Tech.pinions</a>.</p>

<p class="grey">Image credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/DurC25GdOvk">Joakim Honkasalo</a> via Unsplash</p>
<p><a rel='alternate' href='https://www.techspot.com/news/76262-opinion-tech-content-needs-regulation.html' target='_blank'>Permalink to story.</a></p><p class='permalink'><a rel='alternate' href='https://www.techspot.com/news/76262-opinion-tech-content-needs-regulation.html'>https://www.techspot.com/news/76262-opinion-tech-content-needs-regulation.html</a></p></div>
 

psycros

Posts: 3,442   +3,982
"For example, the return of childhood measles—a disease that was nearly eradicated from the US—is almost entirely due to the spread of scientifically invalid anti-vaccine rhetoric being spread across social media and other sites.:

Laughable. The main driver for the return of previously defeated infectious diseases is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to western countries. The WHO says so, the CDC does as well. The number of so-called "anti-vaxxers" is almost negligible, and since only their kids will be vulnerable to those diseases I'm calling out the writer of this piece as a propagandist. Mr. O'Donnell, you should apologize for posting this misinformation immediately.
 

treetops

Posts: 3,064   +784
"For example, the return of childhood measles—a disease that was nearly eradicated from the US—is almost entirely due to the spread of scientifically invalid anti-vaccine rhetoric being spread across social media and other sites.:

Laughable. The main driver for the return of previously defeated infectious diseases is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to western countries. The WHO says so, the CDC does as well. The number of so-called "anti-vaxxers" is almost negligible, and since only their kids will be vulnerable to those diseases I'm calling out the writer of this piece as a propagandist. Mr. O'Donnell, you should apologize for posting this misinformation immediately.
Got any facts to back that up? Links? Like how many measle cases come from illegals and how many come from non vaxers?
 

p51d007

Posts: 2,718   +2,052
The problem, is these are PRIVATE companies. Unless congress makes some new rule, how are you going to regulate what is essentially "speech" without running the risk of infringement of the 1st amendment?
As written: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I know there are sadly many that believe the U.S. Constitution is outdated, a relic of the past, it is the law that we live by. Don't like it, then AMEND the Constitution.
As much as I don't like the censoring of expression no matter how bad it might seem, you have to put up with the bad, as well as the good. But, for congress to come in and tell a private company they have to allow this or that, sets a bad precedent. Because, congress NEVER gets done tinkering with things.
The pendulum in DC swings both ways, from liberal, to moderate, to conservative. Many people better hope it never happens, because, once you crack that box open, you'll never be able to close it again.
There are a TON of things on the web I can not stand, but I simply ignore it.
There are many who think if they disagree with something, it should be banned, boycotted etc.
Nope, I simply, ignore it.
If enough consumers, start leaving a company because of their censoring of content, then either they will change, or, eventually go out of business.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,738   +6,106
"For example, the return of childhood measles—a disease that was nearly eradicated from the US—is almost entirely due to the spread of scientifically invalid anti-vaccine rhetoric being spread across social media and other sites. Like election tampering, that’s a serious impact to the safety and health of our society."

You mean like the topic in this link, which I have always believed.


Doctors playing God when they don't and will never fully understand biology. We should trust in them when we have no choice. Daily visits putting our life in their hands, when we are not ill is never a good recipe.

Edit: that was meant to be a link not an embedded video.
 

regiq

Posts: 237   +113
"For example, the return of childhood measles—a disease that was nearly eradicated from the US—is almost entirely due to the spread of scientifically invalid anti-vaccine rhetoric being spread across social media and other sites.:

Laughable. The main driver for the return of previously defeated infectious diseases is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to western countries. The WHO says so, the CDC does as well. The number of so-called "anti-vaxxers" is almost negligible, and since only their kids will be vulnerable to those diseases I'm calling out the writer of this piece as a propagandist. Mr. O'Donnell, you should apologize for posting this misinformation immediately.

Hmmm, an echo of Kremlin propaganda I see...
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,623   +697
As ABC, NBC, and CBS were the Big 3 and influencing public opinion in the 20th Century and were consequently regulated by the FCC unto public decency, then it's possible for the 21st Century Big 3: Facebook, Google, and Twitter can be regulated for public decency. All can make money through advertisements and some type of programming. Targeted ads weren't in should by media in the 20th century nor should be used by 21st media companies. That's why surveys exist. They are opt-in mechanisms. Social media should by no means be public safe spaces for ideology, but should at least be governed by common decency and allow for spirited debate without threats to an individual, group, or entity with personal and punitive harm to existence or livelihood.
 

bobc4012

Posts: 142   +54
Its pathetic to see so many comments against psycros's post by supposedly intelligent people. He did reference both the WHO and the CDC. If one does their homework, they will find that both these organizations are very concerned about the health-risks from illegal immigrants who avoid screening for infectious diseases such as TB, polio, cholera, diphtheria, smallpox, etc. Legal immigrants are screened before being allowed entry into the country. Unfortunately, "temporary visitors" are not screened, which is another gap. All it takes is one person to slip though the cracks and cause an epidemic. BTW, a lot of these diseases are brought into the country by illegals from Asiatic countries. Also, the "so-called fact checkers" are very biased and will often twist facts - Glenn Kessler, a fact-checker for the WaPo, pointed it out in an interview a while back and he also noted that most are typically left-wing Democrats or work for a media outlet that favors Democrats.
A couple of interesting discussions with some stats can be found at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...do-illegal-immigrants-pose-health-risk-us-all and https://fairus.org/issue/societal-i...ed-immigration-expose-us-public-health-crisis .
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
The problem, is these are PRIVATE companies. Unless congress makes some new rule, how are you going to regulate what is essentially "speech" without running the risk of infringement of the 1st amendment?
As written: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I know there are sadly many that believe the U.S. Constitution is outdated, a relic of the past, it is the law that we live by. Don't like it, then AMEND the Constitution.
As much as I don't like the censoring of expression no matter how bad it might seem, you have to put up with the bad, as well as the good. But, for congress to come in and tell a private company they have to allow this or that, sets a bad precedent. Because, congress NEVER gets done tinkering with things.
The pendulum in DC swings both ways, from liberal, to moderate, to conservative. Many people better hope it never happens, because, once you crack that box open, you'll never be able to close it again.
There are a TON of things on the web I can not stand, but I simply ignore it.
There are many who think if they disagree with something, it should be banned, boycotted etc.
Nope, I simply, ignore it.
If enough consumers, start leaving a company because of their censoring of content, then either they will change, or, eventually go out of business.
It is really sad how many liberal people are screaming for the internet to be regulated, not realizing "hey, the government is conservative, could they influence the internet against me?"

they seem to think any regulation would inherently help them. Like, guys, most of the internet is already screeching liberal propaganda. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Netflix, youtube, facebook, google, twitter, gawker, ece are all liberal leaning, all do their best to censor conservative views, ece. And yet, when people want regulation on the internet, they inevitably target FOX, infowars, ece, never targeting liberal media sources.

Let's just call this what it is, an attempt to censor and shut down criticism of conservative ideas online, because the left cant take criticism without turning into crybabies. Newsflash guyz, if the internet gets regulated, most of your precious websites are going to be targeted for libel litigation, CNN will be forced to redact most of its content for blatant lying, and all the twitter and farcebook users wishing ill of the president are going to be getting visits from the secret service. We have seen this with both twitter and facebook, where enforcement of "anti-hate" rules resulted in many lefties being shut down for hate speech. Same when YouTube began demonetizing violent videos.

The lefties screaming for this are closeted communists, they want the government involved with everything because they are convinced, delusional, that they are the only ones with the "right" opinions, and anyone who disagrees with them is a troll, hater, russian, ece. The internet is inherently free, it always will be, all legislating will do is ensure the US loses its grasp on internet influence to other countries that are not afraid to censor people, while lending more overreaching power to the government that you will NEVER get back.
 
Last edited:

treetops

Posts: 3,064   +784
Its pathetic to see so many comments against psycros's post by supposedly intelligent people. He did reference both the WHO and the CDC. If one does their homework, they will find that both these organizations are very concerned about the health-risks from illegal immigrants who avoid screening for infectious diseases such as TB, polio, cholera, diphtheria, smallpox, etc. Legal immigrants are screened before being allowed entry into the country. Unfortunately, "temporary visitors" are not screened, which is another gap. All it takes is one person to slip though the cracks and cause an epidemic. BTW, a lot of these diseases are brought into the country by illegals from Asiatic countries. Also, the "so-called fact checkers" are very biased and will often twist facts - Glenn Kessler, a fact-checker for the WaPo, pointed it out in an interview a while back and he also noted that most are typically left-wing Democrats or work for a media outlet that favors Democrats.
A couple of interesting discussions with some stats can be found at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...do-illegal-immigrants-pose-health-risk-us-all and https://fairus.org/issue/societal-i...ed-immigration-expose-us-public-health-crisis .
"For example, the return of childhood measles—a disease that was nearly eradicated from the US—is almost entirely due to the spread of scientifically invalid anti-vaccine rhetoric being spread across social media and other sites.:

Laughable. The main driver for the return of previously defeated infectious diseases is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to western countries. The WHO says so, the CDC does as well. The number of so-called "anti-vaxxers" is almost negligible, and since only their kids will be vulnerable to those diseases I'm calling out the writer of this piece as a propagandist. Mr. O'Donnell, you should apologize for posting this misinformation immediately.
Neither of your links mention measles or the amount of measles cases that come up from anti vaxers, how do you make a comparison without a comparison? First world countries will usually spread less disease that can be treated with vaccines.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/186678/new-cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/

This chart shows since the anti vaxer movement, more cases have come from anti vaxers (not imported) immigrants.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a2.htm



FIGURE 1. Number and percentage of measles cases that were directly imported and number of cases that were not directly imported* — United States, 2001–2013

m6236a2f1.gif


Furthermore......
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gration/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.80a3cfc01e97

The Philippines and India are on a top 10 list of sources of illegal immigrants, but about three-quarters of all illegal immigrants come from just four countries — Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. And it turns out that these countries have pretty good records on immunization rates.

Here’s how the countries compare to the United States over the four most recent years of data, according to the World Health Organization:

United States: 92 percent (2010); 92 (2011); 92 (2012); 91 (2013)

Mexico: 95 (2010); 98 (2011); 99 (2012); 89 (2013)

El Salvador: 92 (2010); 89 (2011); 93 (2012); 94 (2013)

Guatemala: 93 (2010); 89 (2011); 93 (2012); 85 (2013)

Honduras: 98 (2010); 95 (2011); 93 (2012); 89 (2013)

As you can see, in most years, the other countries had better vaccination rates than the United States, though there was a sudden decline in 2013 in every country but El Salvador. Still, these are fairly high vaccination rates, making it much less likely that illegal immigrants from these countries are a source of the outbreak.

I am an independent voter that seeks facts.

And one more thing....

We should note that CDC’s Schuchat said that in 2014, “79 percent of the unvaccinated cases of measles in the U.S. were unvaccinated due to personal belief exceptions.” So even if one could trace the source to an illegal immigrant, the main source of the problem is a failure to get vaccinated in the first place.
 
Last edited:

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,738   +6,106
This chart shows since the anti vaxer movement, more cases have come from anti vaxers (not imported) immigrants.
What those charts won't show is how breaking down someone's natural immune system is good for big business. And they are forcing people into taking shots without cause. In a country that is supposedly free I might add. There is no need unless there is an outbreak. And even then the damaging long term effects should be considered. But then that is not good for business.
 

EndRessentiment

Posts: 59   +44
What those charts won't show is how breaking down someone's natural immune system is good for big business. And they are forcing people into taking shots without cause. In a country that is supposedly free I might add. There is no need unless there is an outbreak. And even then the damaging long term effects should be considered. But then that is not good for business.

Wait, what?! "Unless there is an outbreak"... So first casualties would have to ramp up before considering vaccinations? Vaccinations are mostly for prevention, not that that is their sole purpose though... But they work great for prevention, but not half as good to fight a spreading disease.

What kind of damaging long term effects? Do you know any research on these effects? (I hope nobody brings up autism here...)
 

gamerk2

Posts: 513   +411
Funny how the GOP wants to regulate everything that is unfavorable to them, and de-regulate everything that is.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 513   +411
"For example, the return of childhood measles—a disease that was nearly eradicated from the US—is almost entirely due to the spread of scientifically invalid anti-vaccine rhetoric being spread across social media and other sites.:

Laughable. The main driver for the return of previously defeated infectious diseases is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to western countries. The WHO says so, the CDC does as well. The number of so-called "anti-vaxxers" is almost negligible, and since only their kids will be vulnerable to those diseases I'm calling out the writer of this piece as a propagandist. Mr. O'Donnell, you should apologize for posting this misinformation immediately.

And yet, ~80% of all measles cases come from those who don't get vaccinated; another 15% or so comes from those with weak immune systems who rely entirely on herd immunity for protection. So no, it's not just anti-vaccers at risk.

Regardless of source, there would be no problem is everyone was vaccinated.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,738   +6,106
What kind of damaging long term effects? Do you know any research on these effects? (I hope nobody brings up autism here...)
Big pharma kills anyone that threaten their fortune. So no evidence will be available for long. But over the years if you listen there is evidence of what I am saying. If you think doctors and medicine are so innocent, why are there doctors and medicine being banned all the time. Have you ever stopped to consider that the immune shots are not as perfect as they should be? I doubt it because you promoting them too loudly.

Regardless of source, there would be no problem is everyone was vaccinated.
If contaminating the body stopped there maybe.
 
Last edited:

gamerk2

Posts: 513   +411
Big pharma kills anyone that threaten their fortune. So no evidence will be available for long. But over the years if you listen there is evidence of what I am saying. If you think doctors and medicine are so innocent, why are there doctors and medicine being banned all the time. Have you ever stopped to consider that the immune shots are not as perfect as they should be? I doubt it because you promoting them too loudly.

"Big Pharma" has to be reinbursed for vaccinations by the federal government since they lose money on it. So your entire argument that vaccines are a ploy by "Big Pharma" to protect their money falls flat on it's face.

The only danger from vaccines that have been observed in over a century of use is a sub-1% chance of an allergic reaction. Independent study after independent study have shown no health risks, long or short term, to vaccines.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,738   +6,106
"Big Pharma" has to be reinbursed for vaccinations by the federal government since they lose money on it. So your entire argument that vaccines are a ploy by "Big Pharma" to protect their money falls flat on it's face.
That's only because you refuse to plug it into the big picture.

How do you get someone hooked on drugs? You give them a free sample. A little bit in the beginning does not harm much, and the body can recover usually. But over time, you are playing in the lottery. You know what happens to people when they gamble, they usually lose. And if you ever do win, you likely will not the next time.

- - - -
My son was diagnosed with ADHD. I always said it was just a kid being a kid. His mother was making him take meds. I recently gained custody of him. I did not force meds on him which allowed him to stop taking them.

He just yesterday told a story at the dinner table. He mentioned telling his friend he no longer suffers ADHD, because he stopped taking meds. What ever that meant you would have to ask him. Whether it was ADHD itself or the imbalance of mode swings caused by the meds. All I know is he for the first time suggested he feels better now than he ever has. Now this is a kid that was put on medication while his body was still developing. There is no telling the damage that was caused or how he would have developed on his own without the meds. All I know is I would have never ever forced any of it on him.

If you want to be an advocate for meds, so be it. I will however be an advocate against meds. This is not to suggest I don't believe they can help temporarily. Long term exposure in my opinion is catastrophic. So in a sense it is not the meds I am against, it is the long term exposure. Meds might help but they are also crippling.

Whether or not meds helped my son or not, I can not say. I can say he no longer needs them. And as long as he was taking them he was showing signs of being basically hooked on them. It is no different than being hooked on illegal drugs. Your body needs time to heal on its own. This healing time is what people do not allow themselves. I do question if the immunization shots threw his young body out of balance before he ever really learned how to balance. And his signs of ADHD was a factor of this imbalance. And the continued use of ADHD meds, kept him in a state of appearing to be ADHD. All because no one allowed his body to balance itself.

You speak to me as if I don't and can't witness all the negative side effects. That is fine I am used to it. Here is a bit of irony for you. I don't take meds at all (not even aspirin) and have a greater potential to out live you. So I can attest to the idea meds are not absolutely needed. They are however desired despite the potential risk.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 513   +411
That's only because you refuse to plug it into the big picture.

How do you get someone hooked on drugs? You give them a free sample. A little bit in the beginning does not harm much, and the body can recover usually. But over time, you are playing in the lottery. You know what happens to people when they gamble, they usually lose. And if you ever do win, you likely will not the next time.

- - - -
My son was diagnosed with ADHD. I always said it was just a kid being a kid. His mother was making him take meds. I recently gained custody of him. I did not force meds on him which allowed him to stop taking them.

He just yesterday told a story at the dinner table. He mentioned telling his friend he no longer suffers ADHD, because he stopped taking meds. What ever that meant you would have to ask him. Whether it was ADHD itself or the imbalance of mode swings caused by the meds. All I know is he for the first time suggested he feels better now than he ever has. Now this is a kid that was put on medication while his body was still developing. There is no telling the damage that was caused or how he would have developed on his own without the meds. All I know is I would have never ever forced any of it on him.

If you want to be an advocate for meds, so be it. I will however be an advocate against meds. This is not to suggest I don't believe they can help temporarily. Long term exposure in my opinion is catastrophic. So in a sense it is not the meds I am against, it is the long term exposure. Meds might help but they are also crippling.

Whether or not meds helped my son or not, I can not say. I can say he no longer needs them. And as long as he was taking them he was showing signs of being basically hooked on them. It is no different than being hooked on illegal drugs. Your body needs time to heal on its own. This healing time is what people do not allow themselves. I do question if the immunization shots threw his young body out of balance before he ever really learned how to balance. And his signs of ADHD was a factor of this imbalance. And the continued use of ADHD meds, kept him in a state of appearing to be ADHD. All because no one allowed his body to balance itself.

You speak to me as if I don't and can't witness all the negative side effects. That is fine I am used to it. Here is a bit of irony for you. I don't take meds at all (not even aspirin) and have a greater potential to out live you. So I can attest to the idea meds are not absolutely needed. They are however desired despite the potential risk.

You are making an invalid comparison; immunization shots have no long-term effect on body chemistry aside from creating antibodies for a specific virus. By contrast, various anti-depressants and anti-psychotics do have various (and sometimes unexpected) results on behavior since they are directly affecting body chemistry. Arguing those drugs may not be the best solution for specific use cases is a valid argument, but that does NOT in any way support the argument that vaccines are in any way dangerous, especially with over 100 years of evidence that shows they are perfectly safe.

And before you comment, as someone who has been heavily medicated for various psychological problems (including ADHD), I am fully qualified to to argue this point. I will say you can certainly learn to manage ADHD as you grow up, but it never fully goes away (even meds only suppress the most obvious effects). And because psychotic diagnosis is a VERY inexact science, it's not terribly uncommon to end up using a medication that does not produce the intended effects.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,738   +6,106
You are making an invalid comparison; immunization shots have no long-term effect on body chemistry aside from creating antibodies for a specific virus.
After reading your last paragraph, I can understand why you would want to believe that.
 
D

DelJo63

You speak to me as if I don't and can't witness all the negative side effects. That is fine I am used to it. Here is a bit of irony for you. I don't take meds at all (not even aspirin) and have a greater potential to out live you. So I can attest to the idea meds are not absolutely needed. They are however desired despite the potential risk.

{rant-on}
Hmm -- IMO they don't even know/care about risks - - just ask them to explain them.

The AMA, ADA, FDA imo are all in bed with the BIG Pharma and suspect because treatments in Europe which are banned in the US are effect, cheap and don't rely upon multiple visits, therapies or long term expensive drugs.

Totally anecdotal and personal evidence: Doc wants me on lipitor / atorvastatin ; I put a teaspoon of Cinnamon on my oatmeal and use Almond milk. Six months later (w/o damage to my liver), my LDL is down 40 points.
{/rant-off}
 
Last edited by a moderator:

captaincranky

Posts: 16,680   +5,458
"Big Pharma" has to be reinbursed for vaccinations by the federal government since they lose money on it. So your entire argument that vaccines are a ploy by "Big Pharma" to protect their money falls flat on it's face.
Aren't you really saying the Fed pays big pharma for their vaccines, which are then offered to the public for free. Pharmaceutical companies are certainly not losing money selling vaccines. If anything, your tax dollars are diverted to these companies, in large part, with Medicare funds. So your spin is, in effect, asinine retrograde logic.

The only danger from vaccines that have been observed in over a century of use is a sub-1% chance of an allergic reaction. Independent study after independent study have shown no health risks, long or short term, to vaccines.
I was never vaccinated against chicken pox, measles, or mumps, due to the fact there weren't any vaccines available.

Well, I survived all three of these heinous diseases quite nicely, thank you.

I think this argument is couched in the fact that this is a generation of snowflakes.

People run up their own health care costs with superfluous ands unnecessary procedures, sold to them by health care providers. One classic example is ultrasound during pregnancy. This procedure is in the thousands of dollars, and the pictures from it wind up being passed around in McDonald's as, "baby pictures", by expectant mothers.

And yeah, in my days, women actually had healthy babies, without all these bullsh!t extra charges.

In another couple of decades, people are liable to need to travel to China for hospitalization because of the likely vastly lower wages paid health care workers.

Gibson Guitars just declared bankruptcy, and their Chinese subsidiary, Epiphone, is doing just fine, thank you very much. The US has pretty much turned into a lazy, sexually ambiguous, fop infested, "District One", of "The Hunger Games" fame.
 
Last edited: