On Tuesday, July 16, Physician’s Weekly conducted another installment of its #PWChat series, co-hosted with Linda Girgis, MD (@DrLindaMD) and healthcare analyst Matthew Loxton (@mloxton).
The interactive discussion focused on efforts to debunk false info & mistaken opinions on vaccines on social media, based on their article.
Question 1
OK, on with the chat…
Q1: Why is it important to examine how participants in the vaccine debate on Twitter argue their position?#PWChat
— Physician’s Weekly (@physicianswkly) July 16, 2019
A1. It is important because many debate without any foundation of science. Science must be in any discussion about vaccines/medicine in general. #PWchat https://t.co/5rLjd5EUiV
— Linda Girgis, MD (@DrLindaMD) July 16, 2019
A1 Agree, just by dismissing the other viewpoint without making them feel heard or understood leads to even deeper entrenchment of wrong theories. Kind of like someone with a delusion #pwchat
— Sarah Nadeem, MD, FACE (@SarahNadeemMD) July 16, 2019
A1: Listening to understand opposing views is critical to developing an appropriate, structured response. What are the primary concerns?
Not all views can be changed, but debates should be done respectfully. Anger will not help anyone in this discussion. #PWChat— Kelly Cawcutt MD MS (@KellyCawcuttMD) July 16, 2019
You can be on the fence all you want but the knee-jerk reaction to ignore data weakens any arguments. Nothing is 100% safe—but the probability of harm if you don’t vaccinate is high.
— Bonny McClain (@datamongerbonny) July 16, 2019
Question 2
Q2: What is the significance of people on social media forming an attitude toward vaccines through the lens of affiliation?#PWChat
— Physician’s Weekly (@physicianswkly) July 16, 2019
A2 – continued. This is why the medical community needs to meet the public in this space, to combat misinformation & provide reliable public health education were our patients & colleagues are looking – online. #PWChat
— Kelly Cawcutt MD MS (@KellyCawcuttMD) July 16, 2019
Through social media you can find like-minded people and opinions and anecdotes are treated as facts and evidence for arguments. We must therefore be present to debunk myths and participate in the discussion as physicians. Docs are seen also as advocating for big pharma. #PWchat
— Katrin Rabiei, MD PhD FEBNS (@DrKatrin_Rabiei) July 16, 2019
A2 This is a real barrier. Many sorted participants into “like us” or “not like us” groups. This is a big challenge, because they may not even try to understand anything the outgroup says #PWChat https://t.co/CNSSwhew6N
— Matthew Loxton (@mloxton) July 16, 2019
Interesting question. A2: it would seem as though many opposed are anti-authority as they seem to view it as oppression of minority. As physicians/scientists are viewed as authorities in their respective fields, it’s easy to lump them into an “other” category— oppressors #PWChat
— matthew Gibb (@immunotoxPhD) July 16, 2019
Question 3
Q3: What is the significance of people simplifying discussions of vaccines/vaccination/immunization on Twitter? What did you see is the impact of this?#PWChat
— Physician’s Weekly (@physicianswkly) July 16, 2019
A3: The challenge of Twitter is the char limitations. But on FB there is much more room to explain, and express concepts and the science of the vaccine research. #pwchat
— Margaret Stager, MD (@DrStager) July 16, 2019
A3: in-depth science can easily bore or confuse those without the proper background, and ultimately closes doors. Just as with clinical bedside education, #SoMe explanations detailed science need to be easy to grasp. This is difficult at best. #PWChat
— matthew Gibb (@immunotoxPhD) July 16, 2019
A3 – In truth, nothing in medicine is ‘simple’. Not all vaccines are indicated or recommended to all people, so the nuances of recommendations & practice may be confusing. Oversimplify can open the door for further confusion & mistrust. #PWChat
— Kelly Cawcutt MD MS (@KellyCawcuttMD) July 16, 2019
A3 it’s hard to express all the important parts of vaccination in one tweet. And comments can be taken out of context easily. I think this can hurt the discussion. #PWChat
— Dr. Jaime Friedman (@DrJaimeFriedman) July 16, 2019
Question 4
Q4: What is the significance of trust of the bearer of a message regarding vaccines seemingly more indicative of acceptance than the content of the message itself?#PWChat
— Physician’s Weekly (@physicianswkly) July 16, 2019
A4: You’ve found the crux of the issue here: TRUST. Yes, certain personas convey and are more trusted than others. Remember Marcus Welby MD? He was the face of the American physician for years, albeit a TV doctor.
If I trust you then I believe you.#pwchat— Margaret Stager, MD (@DrStager) July 16, 2019
A4: Trust is an interesting topic in medicine. As we all well know, Black Americans have a historical distrust towards the medical community (Tuskegee, HELA, healthcare disparities). However, it’s the privileged who choose to forgo preventative medicine in vaccinations. #PWChat
— Kaishauna Guidry, MD (@DrMamaKai) July 16, 2019
Trust is obviously very important. I find antivaxers against big pharma, not really trusting doctors either as they believe we’re all paid and sponsored by these companies to promote their products. #Pwchat
— Katrin Rabiei, MD PhD FEBNS (@DrKatrin_Rabiei) July 16, 2019
Question 5
Q5: Can you explain how one could logically be led to an outcome in which Andrew Wakefield may be highly trusted and regarded as in-group, while a primary care physician may become out-group and distrusted?#PWChat
— Physician’s Weekly (@physicianswkly) July 16, 2019
Yes, I have seen a little shift in the numbers. Nurses still have very high trust, and should maybe be the people doing most of the vaccines promotions and discussion?#PWChat
— Matthew Loxton (@mloxton) July 16, 2019
An example from where I did my pediatrics training. This kind of anti-vaccine sentiment is more prevalent in top hospitals than many people may realize. Have heard anti-vaccine comments from lactation consultants, RNs. #PWChathttps://t.co/T4sxjFmp4N
— Umbereen Nehal (@usnehal) July 16, 2019
Question 6
Q6: What did your review of the Twitter data show regarding changes in positioning or understanding regarding the vaccine debate?#PWChat
— Physician’s Weekly (@physicianswkly) July 16, 2019
What we see more than shifting, is honing.
People use the arguments against them to hone their position, rather than actual shift.It’s kind of a Darwinian shaping process going on#PWChat
— Matthew Loxton (@mloxton) July 16, 2019
Question 7
Q7: What are the implications of your finding of very little shift in opinions on vaccines?#PWChat
— Physician’s Weekly (@physicianswkly) July 16, 2019
A7: In the clinical setting, this means that those who oppose vaccines altogether are naiive to the very REAL illnesses and conditions caused by the vaccine-preventable diseases. I wrote an article about that here: https://t.co/i9JgIsWS7f#pwchat
— Margaret Stager, MD (@DrStager) July 16, 2019
A7. People already have their minds made up on the issue. #PWchat https://t.co/UqOJKcrVRP
— Linda Girgis, MD (@DrLindaMD) July 16, 2019
Question 8
And… the buzzer beater question…
Q8: Why do you feel that being actively pro-vaccine on social media is a socially worthwhile activity for those who have the energy and don’t mind being sworn at occasionally?#PWChat
— Physician’s Weekly (@physicianswkly) July 16, 2019
A8 – I think that there at least has to be a balance of information. There is so much misinformation on social media/internet that the public deserves to be exposed to truthful and accurate information. If we don’t put that information out there, who will? #PWchat
— Dr. David Epstein (@MVP_Pediatric) July 16, 2019
A8. Because vaccines save lives and there is so much false information out there. I think doctors have a responsibility to make sure people are at least getting the right information. #Pwchat https://t.co/CMcY7uuILx
— Linda Girgis, MD (@DrLindaMD) July 16, 2019
