Researchers from the Hebrew University and the USA discovered that people tend to respond positively to information that has already received positive responses
How do we decide if some purchase is worth our money, if we should see a certain motion picture or if a party deserves our support? In the age of the Internet, we form our positions more and more on the basis of scores and ratings of other net surfers. But does the so-called wisdom of crowds ultimately produce unbiased information and help us make better decisions? A new study by researchers from Israel and the United States published this week in the respected scientific journal Science reveals how easy it is to influence the wisdom of the masses online and sheds light on our tendency to follow the herd.
To quantify the strength of social influence online, the researchers - Dr. Lev Muchnik from the School of Business Administration at the Hebrew University, Prof. Sinan Aral from MIT and Sean Taylor from New York University - designed a large-scale experiment in collaboration with a news site similar to the popular sites Reddit and - Digg.com. On these sites, surfers share content with each other freely, comment on that content and vote positively or negatively on the responses of others, so that each response receives an aggregated public score based on the number of positive votes (1+) offsetting the negative votes (1-) given to it.
The editors of the study received from the website the opportunity to be the first factor to give a score to thousands of new comments uploaded to the website. The researchers randomly and once gave 4,049 responses a positive score (1+) and 1,942 responses a negative score (1-). Throughout the following week, the researchers followed the cumulative rating given by the surfers to the responses that the researchers were the first to give a score and to the responses that the researchers did not give a score to and served as a control group. The responses whose rating was raised artificially and one-time received a higher weighted score from the surfers than other responses that the study editors did not rate. Overall, the positive manipulation increased the cumulative score of those responses by 25% relative to responses from the control group. That is, the fact that surfers saw that certain responses received a positive score significantly increased the probability that they would also give a positive score.
Among the top seven categories on the site, a significant herd effect was found in three categories: politics, culture and business, and no significant herd effect was found in responses on the topics of economy, information technology, fun and general news. While the positive manipulation had, as mentioned, a significant effect in some of the categories, the study found that the negative manipulation of the responses did not lead the surfers to give those responses a lower average score than they gave to the responses in the control group. According to the researchers, negative manipulation created the opposite phenomenon in surfers who gave a positive score out of a desire to correct the cumulative negative result, thus neutralizing the social impact of the negative manipulation.
According to the researchers, the results indicate that social influence significantly affects the dynamics of ranking in systems that use collective intelligence. While the social impact of a negative review is neutralized by people wanting to correct the negative outcome, exposure to a positive review significantly increases the chances that people will choose to give a positive review as well. The researchers add that it is necessary to continue investigating the phenomenon in order to more accurately understand the collective judgment and to avoid the bias of social influence in collective intelligence.
According to Dr. Muchnik, "the research shows that we are less independent in our decision-making than we would like to believe and that the wisdom of crowds is not really the collection of the individual positions of all the members of the group, because our private position is shaped, among other things, by the positions of others in the group and influences about them". Muchenik also says: "The more information processing and communication technologies become more common, the more dominant a role they take in our decision-making processes. Our research findings have implications in a variety of areas where people are exposed to and may be influenced by other people's attitudes, such as voting in elections, stock market forecasting, and product recommendations. That's why we need to make online ratings and the technologies that weigh reviews, take into account the bias of social influence, so that we can interpret collective judgment in a qualitative way and make better use of collective intelligence in the future."
We asked Prof. Mochanik to find out about a current issue - the spread of arguments without a scientific basis about the apparent risk of vaccination, and the fear that the herd effect is at work here and does not allow for normal information, and he replied: "The more people talk about a certain issue, I fear that more and more people will be affected. This is what can achieve the external effect. In the end you compare the opinions with others. No one wants to be an exception. If you think you are alone in this opinion, you will neither express it nor will it catch on. The very fact that there are people talking about it, gives it more gushepanka. I can see cases where movements of this kind, conspiracy theorists would have a positive result if there is indeed a conspiracy. In the case of the vaccines, probably not.
There is something immoral about refusing to get vaccinated. The vaccines work (related to another area of my research - the spread of information in society - network spread which is the way epidemics also spread). Vaccination of diseases works when the vast majority of people are vaccinated, when a very high percentage of people are vaccinated, you yourself do not have to be vaccinated. Every vaccine has a certain risk. If 100% of the people are vaccinated, the last one not vaccinated is basically riding on the vaccine that the others took. In such a situation, you would prefer that everyone else get vaccinated and you don't."
But the opponents of vaccines call everyone not to get vaccinated?
"It's already a matter of policy and opportunities versus risks. Obviously, every vaccine has a risk, but the risks should be very low. This is what the Ministry of Health is supposed to appreciate and in a reformed country we are supposed to trust the Ministry of Health. He has responsibility, unlike all those who spread the rumors."
How do you explain the shadow of the opponents who spread incorrect things?
I don't know if everyone knows that these things are not true. What percentage of people have read the studies on the safety of vaccines? I have actually read quite a number of studies that talk about policy on genetically modified food. There, too, the resistance stems from ignorance. People simply do not understand how the business works and use incorrect arguments. There are arguments against and for, but when you participate in the discussion you have to base yourself on facts. Most of the claims are based on nothing because people didn't understand. I imagine this is also the case in the field of vaccines. I am sure that at the meetings of the Ministry of Health, arguments are raised against general vaccination. I hope it is based on research and knowledge and not on rumors."
40 תגובות
skeptic:
You are already turning a question I asked into a theory.
When I don't know something I ask and at the same time make assumptions and there is nothing wrong with that.
In the meantime, by the way, I found the answer to the question, but neither you, nor Moshe, nor anyone else answered it.
It doesn't change the fact that you didn't understand that the inactivated vaccine also immunizes against the weakened vaccine, and if in your opinion the fact that during 15 years in which all children were vaccinated with both vaccines, nothing dramatic happened, this is a bundle of trouble for reasons that this is not the place to detail. Casualties This was not a bunch of trouble.
Is the fact that you and Moshe are just throwing insults without saying anything of substance supposed to impress me?
You made me laugh!
oops…
My response to M-Y-C-A-L about his shallow understanding of polio vaccines was sent before it was finished. I will continue from the end of the previous message.
Vaccination against an attenuated vaccine is a bundle of trouble for various reasons that this is not the place to detail. This is exactly what my two links to "one other" revolved around.
Poor Indians who got vaccinated against wild polio and are now (perhaps) in a worse sanitary condition than when the incendiary vaccine started. The number of cases of paralysis from polio derived today in India is approximately *5 times* the amount of paralysis from polio and derived polio that was there before the incendiary vaccine. Hopefully they didn't get too involved. All because the weakened vaccination campaign in India was done recklessly. Now we are also doing a rash vaccination operation (without doing preparatory actions to check the chances of success).
M-Y-K-A-L
Your comments are just noise. Your bragging about knowing about polio vaccines only makes an impression on people who are not well versed in the subject.
Moshe expressed his opinion on your understanding of the subject, as expressed in your clowning, with the words NOT EVEN WRONG. In spoken Hebrew, NOT EVEN WRONG means an argument so completely unfounded that it cannot even be corrected.
Your knowledge of the subject is weak knowledge and is at a high school level. The proof that you have no idea where the wild polio viruses came to Israel. Since you don't know where the wild viruses came from - you invented a theory about where they came from. In terms of inventing a baseless theory you are no better than Yehuda Swetser (or whatever he is called) the amateur astronomer. I remember how you scolded him for inventing theories that depend on containment and now you do the same.
It's funny that you claim that I didn't understand something about the polio vaccine while my knowledge is infinitely better than yours, you just didn't understand the issue of vaccination against attenuated vaccine, . Vaccination against a weakened vaccine is a bundle of trouble and that
I don't remember saying that my knowledge about polio is little, but I'm not the one who didn't know that the vaccine with the killed virus also immunizes against the weakened virus.
The one who didn't understand this was the one who now allows himself to underestimate my knowledge and ignore the clowns' words (the world is funny so you laugh and one of the reasons that make the world funny is the existence of people who say seriously funny things).
The empirical information that worries a skeptic does not worry the medical experts in Israel.
Between the years 1990-2005, all children were vaccinated with a killed vaccine followed by a live-attenuated vaccine and there was not a single case of severe side effects among the vaccinated nor among people close to them.
http://www.doctors.co.il/ar/15700/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F+%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95:+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%93+%D7%90%D7%95+%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93+q00
It is possible to frighten very well with studies that talk about other things (such as using the weakened virus without using the killed virus, a use that is also not particularly dangerous, but this is not the place to go into detail because that is not what is happening in Israel) but it is clear that when you talk about other things, you only intend to mislead the public.
another one
5
Do you mean the link I gave in section 4? If so - use the link I gave in section 4, it works without problems. If the link does not work, add a standard license to the link in section 4
http://www.
Most browsers add this legacy when it is not written explicitly. If there are still problems we will see what can be done.
Regarding a search on Google, according to my explanation in section 5 - this is intended for other searches on quantitative records of AFP paralysis in India, because the matter of quantities in the records of such paralysis is not entirely clear. Some count the AFP paralysis differently, or count them over a different range of years.
Regarding Google in general. There is a problem of explosions when opening links through Google, which has gotten stronger in recent months. I don't know exactly the reasons for the outages, maybe it depends on the load on Google's servers, so it depends on what time of day the search is made. Also, according to my Android tablet experience, the Google link is sometimes better to open in a new TAB, this trick may not work on non-Android tablet computers.
The doubter, the link exists in Google but leads to a missing page - could the file have been removed?
Spring.
I thank you for quickly releasing my long response. Everything I wrote was written by me and was not published anywhere. No copyright problem.
Words that have been misused in the past by spammers or trolls have entered a suspect list, anyway I let you go. I hope there is no copyright infringement in your comment because it seems to me to be copied from somewhere
another one
A detailed follow-up response to you regarding polio vaccine damage has either been blocked or suspended.
If you want, I will transfer it to you in alternate ways. If it is a suspension for a day or two, I will be content with publishing it here.
Spring.
A long response that I posted today, a continuation of my response to "another one", has been suspended for reasons I do not understand. I don't see anything illegitimate in what I said. I present detailed information in a respectful way. I may have said a taboo word there that caused the block.
I request that you remove this block within a reasonable time. I hope the blocking does not express censorship of opinions. The very suspension, even if it is lifted in a few more days, is censorship of opinions, since it is important to publish it immediately.
another one
--------------------------------
0. This response is a follow-up response to a previous long response regarding the risks of the oral polio vaccine; The previous response I am referring to was published about two days ago and included references to a link to a medical article regarding the complications. I also named the above article "Link to the fourth article" or similar names.
1. Ignore the clownish words of *M-Y-K-A-L*. He himself stated that the knowledge he has about polio is little. This does not prevent him from demonstrating cleverness and mockery. I will give you more things about this matter, only if you wish, through private messages, when the time comes; I am not available for that at the moment. On the other hand, I don't think it would be right to publish it here publicly.
2. The fourth article to which I directed your attention about two days ago, is an article that explains in detail the infectious problem created by the widespread distribution of weakened polio viruses. The writers are probably conventional epidemiologists who cannot be said to be "vaccine opponents, polio deniers, haters of conventional medicine" and all the other titles that are used to be said on this website to disparage uncomfortable opinions. I don't think that the above writers are outside the mainstream of medicine. As mentioned, I do not expect you to read the article, it is a loaded technical article, but you can verify for yourself, if you wish, that the authors are serious and from the mainstream.
3. There is very worrying empirical information (the information has not been sufficiently checked by me as reliable information) regarding an increase in AFP paralysis cases in India following oral polio vaccines given there. The oral polio vaccine, OPV, is the vaccine that uses a weakened virus as opposed to the injectable polio vaccine, IPV, which uses a dead polio virus. AFP is the abbreviation for ACUTE FLACCID PARALYSIS syndrome. The paralysis resulting from wild polio and the paralysis from derived polio (from a weakened polio virus) are both described as AFP syndrome. There are also cases of AFP syndrome that result from other medical problems. It is quite difficult to make a differential diagnosis between AFP originating from wild polio and AFP originating from derived polio. Therefore, there are situations in which no distinction is made between the two cases in the sickness records. After the long technical introduction I wrote I will bring the alarming information itself.
There have been records of AFP cases in India for many years. Among other things, there are such records for each of the years in which residents in India were vaccinated with OPV (due to the outbreak of a wild polio epidemic at the beginning of the 21st century). It turns out that the number of AFP cases in the first year of vaccination in India was approximately 10,000 (I do not remember the exact year, for the purpose of the discussion I will tentatively assume that the year was 2006). The number of AFP cases increased gradually up to approximately 60,000 AFP cases in 2012. In 2012, India was recognized as a country completely free of wild polio. I emphasize: in the year 2012 there were 60,000 AFP cases while the wild polio virus is on fire. Note: The numbers I mentioned may be slightly wrong, but the numerical errors, if any, are not significant for the purpose of the discussion.
There is no medical event in India during the oral vaccine years that explains the 6-fold doubling of AFP cases during the oral vaccine years, except for the fact that there was an OPV oral vaccine that spreads attenuated viruses. An intelligent guess says that the 6-fold doubling of AFP paralysis cases is a result of the oral vaccine and that it is the weakened polio viruses that caused this increase in paralysis cases. As mentioned, this is only an intelligent guess, I have not come across any empirical research that proved or disproved this intelligent guess. I did not do a lengthy search on this matter so I do not know if an empirical study has been done on this matter.
4. Below is a link to an article I found today in an Indian medical magazine, regarding the spread of polio caused by the OPV vaccine.
beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/06/48000-paralysis-cases-from-polio-vaccine-in-india-indian-journal-of-medical-ethics-2674418.html
The numbers in this article are different from the numbers I mentioned but the conclusion of the article is similar to my conclusion (the conclusions are even harsher than mine). Two of the conclusions there are:
4a. OPV vaccination caused a 12-fold doubling of AFP paralyzes,
4b. Using the OPV vaccine will not succeed in burning the wild polio epidemic.
It is possible to doubt conclusion 4b, since it is apparently a section called "alternative", meaning something that belongs to alternative medicine.
There is no reason to disqualify section 4a, since here we are talking about dry numerical data that are not subject to the agenda.
The numbers 10000 and 60000 that I mentioned earlier are taken from other sites that I currently do not remember, possibly English Wikipedia or a similar site that reflects mainstream opinion.
5. If you would like to search for more material on AFP case number records in India you can do a Google search with the keywords
AFP POLIO INDIA
The article mentioned in section 4 is an article I found through the Google search I mentioned in section 5.
It's good that there is someone to whom I am so important that he continues to write comments that deal (because this is the minimum necessary) only with me (and with disinformation about me - including the claim put in my mouth with the typical denial that Moshe unreservedly supported the words of a skeptic (after all, I said that Moshe actually agreed with me and not with him) and includes a description of his words of Moshe as criticism and not as a personal attack without any justification)
skeptic
Unlike you, I also change my underwear all the time.
And yet it doesn't change the facts I wrote about you.
(Also, do yourself a favor and exempt us from reading your stupid comments)
To a troll who calls himself "skepticism above and beyond what is necessary"
You are the troll who keeps changing your nickname. You are the troll that I called "consultant de la shemte". A troll constantly changes nicknames because he is afraid of being recognized.
As soon as you are identified as a troll I am exempt from addressing what you say.
skeptic:
"This is precisely because of the respectable image he received in the forum (an image that is unfair in my opinion)."
You would be satisfied with this sentence - and this sentence would provide all the insights needed for others to understand whether to believe you, or agree with the facts.
another one (and for all intents and purposes)
I have a follow-up response to my previous response to "another" regarding public health complications resulting from the administration of attenuated polio vaccine. This response is in the proofreading stages since it is long and somewhat technical. This response will be brought today or tomorrow, if I have no unexpected obstacles.
My follow-up response was written in view of M-Y-K-A-L's clownish words about my first response on this matter. My opinion on M-Y-K-A-L has been negative for a long time, he is a *destructive* factor for free discourse among the commenters on this site; This is precisely because of the respectable image he received in the forum (an image that is unfair in my opinion). I don't want to deal with Y-K-A-L beyond the necessary minimum, as far as I'm concerned, his clownish words are annoying background noise and are not important from a substantive point of view. Any public litigation about the character of M.R. In general and the noise it causes here will be a diversion from the discussion that is important to me.
The most important discussion for me is:
Does the oral polio vaccine itself cause viral infection and damage to public health or not. In other words: the weakened polio viruses are themselves harmful viruses (probably) that cause public health damage. The question is what is the degree of health damage caused by the weakened viruses. According to my understanding, there are 18 strains of weakened viruses that are difficult to get rid of. Each oral vaccine spreads a wide spread of these viruses, this infection remains active for several years after the oral vaccine has ended. There is a discussion among epidemiologists on this issue, the discussion is far from the public eye.
Regarding Moshe. I don't know him and as far as I remember I responded to his words *once*, at least in the recent past. The disinformation spread by M-Y-K-A-L is denied by this. According to my understanding, Moshe did not express unqualified support for my words, his opinion regarding my words is not clear due to poor wording (it seems to me that he omitted a word or two in the wording of his words). As I understand it, Moshe criticized the disrespect of M-Y-K-A-L for things I said in my response to the "something else" surfer.
Moshe:
You disappoint me!
After all, I myself mentioned one vaccine against which there is a vaccine, and that is precisely the polio vaccine.
Have you already forgotten or did you not understand?
Or maybe you avoided mentioning it because it would hurt your loved one even more?
The killed virus is, as I said, a vaccine against the weakened virus.
Polio is probably the only disease for which there is a vaccine against the vaccine.
Of course, the killed vaccine was not developed with the goal of being a vaccine against the weakened vaccine, but with the goal of being a vaccine against the disease itself, but in practice it also vaccinates against the weakened vaccine (and this is the logic behind the current massive vaccine! The decision to vaccinate the entire population with the weakened virus is based on the fact that the chances of harm being caused are zero because almost everyone is vaccinated against this virus)
And one more thing, Moshe:
Do you really know in the world an example (one!) of a vaccine against a vaccine?
Moshe:
Since you opened a personal thread, I will allow myself to answer that I have no doubt that I understand the matter more than you and it is a shame that you did not understand what I said.
In the end you agree with me but you chose to start things off by trying to hurt me - but this makes sense given the fact that you usually tend to accept the opinions of a "skeptic"
Michael Rothschild
Your understanding of parasitic diseases, vaccines and the human immune system is incorrect. Your answer can only be categorized as "not even wrong".
I usually agree with the opinions of a skeptic, here, not so much due to my past research on vaccines and the causation of diseases. But I am not familiar with the details of the polio vaccine, so I will not participate in the discussion.
Although our point of view may differ, vaccination is the best strategy for winning the war we currently have against parasitic diseases, but it certainly does not guarantee victory in every battle, and may even cause unnecessary battles. But in war as in war when the risk of the enemy's victory is known, giving up the best strategy in our hands sounds to me like taking an uncalculated risk. Even so, I will not take part in the discussion about polio due to a lack of sufficient knowledge about the given vaccine, and a lack of time to read the literature on the subject.
another one:
Following on from a skeptic - there is no vaccine against whipped cream either.
In general - it is not customary to develop vaccines against things against which there is no need for a vaccine.
As a special case of this - there is no vaccine against vaccines because people are simply not idiots.
There is no end to the comic ideas that can be created based on this nonsense:
1. We develop a vaccine against disease X, then we develop a vaccine against the vaccine, then we develop a vaccine against the vaccine against the vaccine and so on and we will always have something we haven't developed a vaccine against.
2. A vaccine against polio is developed, a vaccine against the vaccine is developed and then - when we use it and then we use the vaccine - the vaccine against the vaccine will eliminate the vaccine and we will not be vaccinated against polio.
I want to teach something to some of the people here-
In science, there is no such thing as 'facts' - there are evidences - and there are models.
You can't pick a study that happens to be in consensus - and say it's factual - because it's not true.
There is always room to doubt any conclusion,
skeptic
Everything you wrote in your last comment about me does not change the facts I wrote about you.
Free consultation, no money.
You are a pathetic troll. You are the one I called Counselor de la Shemte. As I recall you used while Nick was changing.
Changing your nicks constantly indicates your inferiority. You are afraid of being identified, that's why you change nicknames.
Spring.
Funny that you write an article condemning the herd syndrome while you are a tireless preacher for the control of the herd syndrome. Anyone who disagrees with the herd's behavior is called in your mouth a quacker, a denier, an objector. For you, the word "consensus" expresses your belief that the minority (in the scientific community) is always right. "Herd" and "consensus" are two words that express exactly the same concept.
FYI: The article I mentioned regarding the spread of the weakened virus as an infectious virus is a respectable medical article, but in your opinion, such an article is probably invalid because it (in your opinion) exudes a departure from the consensus (ie, a departure from the herd).
A skeptic's "proofs" are like "five in the evening with Rafi Reshef" - not five and no Rafi Reshef..
All the claims of the opponents of vaccines are nonsense, all the mutations and all the malfunctions are responsible for 1 in a million compared to the virus itself - the wild one that affects one in a thousand people. To save one person who may have been harmed by the weakened virus in the vaccine (and this is not in the case of a weakened vaccine after a killed vaccine), you harm 999 others, of which 200 are killed. This is irresponsible and calls for murder, how are you not ashamed?
another one
According to my impression, there is not enough knowledge about the spread mechanism of a weakened virus, about the morbidity from it, and there is no systematic procedure for its eradication. Most procedures are limited to inoculation with the non-attenuated polio virus.
Claims that the weakened virus is a vaccine against the weakened virus is an intelligent guess but nothing more. You cannot rely on intelligent guesses as a basis for medical procedures, you need to do many field studies on a large population to reach conclusions that are more substantiated than intelligent guesses.
According to my memory, I hope I'm not wrong, an orderly procedure of giving a weakened vaccine does not always burn the weakened vaccine. According to my memory, a typical situation is that a country is declared free of an unattenuated virus and yet the attenuated virus continues to infect two or three years later.
If you are a masochist and want to read more authoritative answers than what I gave - I refer you to the article that was brought to my attention today. To get your hands on this article go to Karen Waxman's article (or similar name) on this site, the title of her article begins with words like "twenty reasons ..." Go to the last comments from today and find Maximilian's comment and my accompanying comments to his. Maximilian gives 4 links to articles about polio vaccines. Among the above articles, download the article in its last link, this is the article regarding the circulation of an attenuated virus and the proposed procedures for its eradication. As I recall, I specifically mentioned only this article in my accompanying responses to Maximilian's response. If you have further problems obtaining the article, I will continue to guide you on how to obtain it.
Both the attenuated virus and the killed virus are vaccines against the attenuated virus
The weakened virus is not a vaccine against the weakened virus? How long does it stay in the system before the body produces antibodies?
* like a poor man = also a poor man.
Moses
In my opinion, the botched polio vaccine was done under a grandiose plan by an organization called the Organization for the Complete Eradication of the Polio Virus from Our World
http://www.polioeradication.org/
It is an organization subordinate to the WHO. It appears that the oral vaccine will be extended to the whole country. The oral vaccine creates a new viral infection, the weakened virus. We remain stuck with the weakened virus for several years, because it is a highly contagious virus introduced in huge quantities by the oral vaccine.
No vaccine is being prepared against the weakened virus. According to my memory, there are already about 18 strains of the weakened virus in the world. The weakened virus sometimes causes weakened paralysis: like endangering the life of those who have a weak immune system. 18 varieties is already an immune problem: risk of mutations and the like.
There are studies that also prove a herd effect in the field of company reviews by economic experts, often the first review biases the results of the reviews that follow, and this is for people who do this for their job.
There is always risk, ask any insurance agent. But from my recent experience with the WHO, there is no doubt that they see it over-magnified through their narrow magnifying microscope.
Even so, the vaccine is not an experiment, the children of the south are not guinea pigs, and vaccines are the best strategy we have had in the fight against parasitic diseases. Several diseases have been eradicated with its help, as well as several have become less violent.
In relation to the comment why the article does not refer to the things spread by the media. The article refers to our judgment, humans, after being exposed to information. You can make claims to the media, and actually to journalists, editors and owners because they are responsible for spreading the information, but we humans are responsible for checking this information, cross-checking it, and even hearing an opposing Internet source to form an opinion.
Polio – https://www.hayadan.org.il/polio-0608138
genetically modified food https://www.hayadan.org.il/gal60gm-101003/
An unprofessional article because research results are brought only to support the writer's opinion.
Nowhere in the article is there a specific reference to the claims of the opponents of the weakened polio virus vaccine.
On the other hand, there are arguments against those who oppose any vaccine, and against those who oppose genetically modified food.
Not serious.
There is no risk. Just scaring everyone.
The whole thing is just the subordination of the government to the World Health Organization.
And like any organization the motives behind it are first and foremost money.
The children of the south are not guinea pigs, the risk of the wild virus is a thousand times greater than the vaccine
http://www.the7eye.org.il/74776
Yes, is this an objective article?
Why does the article not refer to the things that the media spreads?
Why does the article not refer to the fact that the media is supposed to be critical and not the spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office?
Why doesn't the class address the fact that the children of the south are guinea pigs?