Tag: social media

South African Volunteers Battle Vaccine Misinformation

Man with LED mask reading a burning newspaper. Photo by Connor Danylenko from Pexels.

As the long-delayed vaccine rollout in South Africa has begun, the government has run a public campaign to tackle prevalent health myths. But there are also volunteers who are waging an online battle against COVID and vaccine misinformation, as reported by the BBC.

Sarah Downs, who is studying molecular biology and infectious diseases, debunks false claims under the alias Mistress of Science and is fighting a surge of misinformation in South Africa. A relatively small collection of Facebook groups and users are responsible for promoting this misinformation. When she tweeted about her grandmother’s passing, a COVID denier questioned whether an autopsy had been performed. 
“We estimate that it’s about 20 000 South Africans who are actually active on anti-vax Facebook pages,” said Prof Hannelie Meyer, a pharmacist and adviser to the South African Vaccine and Immunisation Centre (Savic).

Most anti-vaccine claims in South Africa actually originate in the United States, according to a 2015 study. Anecdotal evidence, such as the spread of false claims about vaccines and DNA by an American osteopath, show this trend still holds in the pandemic.

Prof Meyer said that while data on vaccine hesitancy in SA are limited, studies indicate that more wealthy and educated groups, particularly among whites, are less willing to be vaccinated.

Leading virologist Prof Jeffrey Mphahlele has also pushed back against rumours, such as COVID and its vaccines being a Western plot to reduce Africa’s population and control its natural resources. He called the misinformation “mind boggling” – pointing out the supposed plot would require the West to create a virus that killed millions of its own people.

Even authority figures have promulgated falsehoods: South Africa’s top judge was recently criticised after a video showed him linking vaccines to a “Satanic agenda.”

One of the most prominent groups on Facebook, with some 10 000 members, seeks to spread “awareness” about vaccines but the members’ hard-line anti-vaccine attitude is very clear, ridiculing or dismissing vaccines. One video posted in the group – originally aired on an evangelical US Christian television programme – suggested getting a jab could lead to “a lifetime of illness”.

Sarah Downs stepped in to help answer questions amidst the deluge of misinformation, and one person she helped was Sheona Lottering, a swimming teacher.

“I had a friend that forwarded me a German article,” Sheona said. “She was trying to convince me that death was one of the side-effects [of a COVID vaccination].

“And I was a little bit freaked out about that.”

Sarah explained the subtleties around adverse events to her, and now Sheona keeps in contact with Sarah over difficult vaccine-related questions.

Lisa (not her real name) spends hours lurking in Facebook groups to guide people towards trusted sources of health information.

“The claims are so bizarre I could hardly believe there are people believing these things,” she said. “I don’t like misinformation, so when I see something, I just try to correct it.”

Doing this for over a decade, she’s seen communities grow and knows their tactics. She said that young mothers are a particular target in Facebook groups, where posts are coordinated to try and convince them not to vaccinate their children., which is when Lisa steps in. She keeps her inbox open and believes gentle communication works best – asking about people’s concerns rather than shouting statistics at them.

But Sarah, Lisa and other volunteers we spoke to risk exposing themselves to online abuse, and the prospects of persuasion can often seem slim. It’s difficult, pro-health work – that isn’t paid. So do they judge success?

“I think if I can just help one person be a little bit less terrified… that’s what I aim to get out of it,” Sarah says. “And if they’re willing to take the vaccine, even more so.”

Source: BBC News

A Dozen Accounts Responsible for Majority of COVID Misinformation

Photo by Connor Danylenko from Pexels

According to a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), the majority of COVID and vaccine misinformation posts emanate from a dozen accounts.

Out of 812 000 anti-vaccine messages shared or posted on social media platforms between Feb 1 and March 16, 2021, 65% were attributed to just a handful of individuals, whom the report authors have dubbed the “Disinformation Dozen”, 13 users spread across 12 accounts (one of the accounts refers to a couple, Ty and Charlene Bollinger, who are alternative medicine activists).

Some of the individuals named include entrepreneur Joseph Mercola, author Robert F Kennedy Jr and chiropractor Ben Tapper, with the report including examples of the COVID misinformation that they shared on various social media platforms.

Mercola for example has shared his views on unproven COVID cures in various anti-vaxxer groups on Facebook, including one article saying “hydrogen peroxide treatment can successfully treat most viral respiratory illnesses, including coronavirus” getting 4600 shares.

The report notes that Robert Kennedy Jr often shares misinformation linked COVID vaccines to deaths, and his organisation, Children’s Health Defense, released a film in March that targeted American black and Latino communities with anti-vaccine messages. 

“According to our recent report, anti-vaccine activists on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter reach more than 59 million followers, making these the largest and most important social media platforms for anti-vaxxers,” said CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed.

“Despite repeatedly violating Facebook, Instagram and Twitter’s terms of service agreements, nine of the Disinformation Dozen remain on all three platforms, while just three have been comprehensively removed from just one platform,” the report added.

To combat the disinformation problem, the CCDH urged social media companies to deplatform the Disinformation Dozen, along with key organisations associated with the 12 individuals.

In a statement to Engadet, Facebook took issue with the report, claiming that “it taken action against some of the group”. However, the report contends that Facebook’s algorithm struggle to identify COVID misinformation.

Source: The Star

Heart Doctors’ Twitter Popularity Is Unrelated to Their Publications

Phone with popular social media apps including Facebook and Twitter. Photo by Tracy Le Blanc from Pexels.

Having large numbers of widely cited publications has no bearing on the Twitter popularity of academics in the interventional cardiology community, a new study has found. 

The study, by Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico “G Rodolico-San Marco” in Catania, Italy, and colleagues, found that academic impact through papers and citations, as calculated by the Hirsch index (or h-index) was found to be unrelated to whether or not academics were in the top quartile of Twitter followers (> 736 followers).

“Indeed, accounts generating a stream of valuable content are more likely to be followed. In addition, some accounts may take advantage of celebrity to amplify their success, in a kind of incremental cycle,” wrote the authors.
Rather, Twitter followers were defined by factors mostly related to time and effort spent on the platform.

Having abundant tweets (> 505 tweets, adjusted OR 16.39), along with individual charisma (‘Kardashian index’ >5, adjusted OR 8.66), were the most significant predictors. Large number of accounts user follows (> 309 following), tweet rate (> 2.6 tweets per week), a large cooperation network and being affiliated to the US were also predictive of the heart doctors’ Twitter popularity.

“Indeed, accounts generating a stream of valuable content are more likely to be followed. In addition, some accounts may take advantage of celebrity to amplify their success, in a kind of incremental cycle,” according to the authors.

Individual charisma per the ‘Kardashian index‘, which measures discrepancy between social media reputation and publication record, was not a significant factor in the rate at which someone amassed followers.

“In aggregate, our results suggest that a prediction rule for durable popularity on Twitter is to be active and generate valuable contents rather than relying on individual academic or social reputation,” Capodanno’s team concluded.

An earlier study had shown that the reverse was true; the more Twitter followers, the greater their academic standing.
Limitations include not being able to account for anonymous or pseudonym accounts, and the results may not be generalisable to the interventional cardiology community as a whole.

Source: MedPage Today

Journal information: D’Arrigo P, et al “Determinants of popularity and natural history of social media accounts in interventional cardiology” JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.01.021.

Op-ed: Facebook Medical ‘Fact Checking’ Has No Room for Debate

Fact-checking is increasingly important in an era of disinformation on social media, especially with the current COVID pandemic, but an article for MedPage Today calls into question the process for Facebook’s medical fact-checking.

After an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Marty Makary, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins professor and editor-in-chief at MedPage Today, was labelled “misleading” by Facebook fact checkers, another op-ed in MedPage Today asks how the social media giant is choosing its medical fact-checkers. 

Mystified by why this would be labelled “misleading” by Facebook, and setting aside the ‘veracity’ of the article, Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, a haematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, investigated the website HealthFeedback.org that Facebook uses to fact-check some of its medical articles. 

The process involves two to four reviewers chosen to examine an article. Prior to the COVID pandemic, medical fact checking appears to have been done by academics, but the flood of disinformation has resulted in the change of this process, Dr Prasad noted.  

In one instance, a reviewer for the article was selected because he had already written an article critical of Dr Markary’s op-ed: in other words, he was selected because he had already announced his bias.

The website’s picking and choosing of reviewers “felt like a high school clique”, Dr Prasad wrote. One that allowed them to confirm their previously held ideas about COVID and extinguish differing viewpoints. Labelling the alternative views as misleading “instantly usurps the reader of their ability to make up their own mind. It is antithetical to the spirit of the academy.”

He found that the fact-checkers typically had large Twitter followings, while the typical medical professor seems to have them in the hundreds. This makes sense, Dr Prasad wrote, as leading academics and authorities are likely too busy to be courting large numbers of followers on Twitter.
Other than a “vague explanation” of the feedback process, Dr Prasad could not find any information on how Facebook chooses its reviewers, which of the billions of posts and articles on Facebook to fact-check, whether anyone is paid and how appeals are made.

Source: MedPage Today