Anti-vaccine activism
Anti-vaccine activism, which collectively constitutes the "anti-vax" movement,[1] is a set of organized activities proclaiming opposition to vaccination, and these collaborating networks have often fought to increase vaccine hesitancy by disseminating vaccine-based misinformation and/or forms of active disinformation. As a social movement, it has utilized multiple tools both within traditional news media and also through various forms of online communication. Activists have primarily (though far from entirely) focused on issues surrounding children, with vaccination of the young receiving pushback, and they've sought to expand beyond niche subgroups into national political debates.[2]
Although concepts such as various myths and conspiracy theories alongside outright disinformation and misinformation have been spread by the anti-vaccination movement and fringe doctors in a way that has significantly increased vaccine hesitancy (and altered public policy around the ethical, legal, and medical matters related to vaccines), no serious sense of hesitancy or of debate (in the broad sense) exists within mainstream medical circles about the benefits of vaccination. One scholarly article from 2021 has described the present scientific consensus as "clear and unambiguous".[3] At the same time, however, the anti-vax movement has partially succeeded in distorting common understandings of science in popular culture.[2]
20th century[edit]
Anti-vaccine activism ebbed for much of the twentieth century, but never completely vanished. In the UK, the National Anti-Vaccination League continued to publish new issues of its journal until 1972,[23] by which time the global campaign for smallpox eradication through vaccination had made the disease so uncommon that compulsory vaccination for smallpox was no longer required in the United Kingdom.[31]
New vaccines were developed and used against diseases such as diphtheria and whooping cough. In the UK, these were often introduced on a voluntary basis, without arousing the same kind of anti-vaccination response that had accompanied compulsory smallpox vaccination.[31]
In the United States, numerous measles outbreaks occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, and were shown to be more frequent in states that lacked mandatory vaccination requirements. This led to calls in the 1970s for a national level vaccination requirement for children entering schools.
Joseph A. Califano Jr. appealed to state governors, and by 1980, all 50 states legally required vaccination for school entrance. Many of these laws allowed exemptions in response to lobbyists. In New York State, a 1967 law allowed exemptions from receiving polio vaccine for members of religious organizations such as Christian Scientists.[12]
Strategies and tactics[edit]
Arguments used[edit]
In a 2002 paper in the British Medical Journal, two medical historians suggested that the arguments made against the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in the late 20th century are similar to those of the early anti-vaccinationists. Both the 19th and 20th century arguments included "vaccine safety issues, vaccine failures, infringement of personal liberty, and an unholy alliance between the medical establishment and the government to reap huge profits for the medical establishment at the expense of the public."[107] However, the authors only considered the use of "newspaper articles and letters, books, journals, and pamphlets to warn against the dangers of vaccination", and did not address the impact of the internet.[107] Comments on YouTube videos during the COVID-19 pandemic clustered similarly around "concerns about side-effects, effectiveness, and lack of trust in corporations and government".[108]
Misrepresentation[edit]
In some instances, anti-vaccine organizations have used names intended to sound non-partisan on the issue: e.g. National Vaccine Information Center (USA), Vaccination Risk Awareness Network (Canada), Australian Vaccination Network.[95] In November 2013 the Australian Vaccination Network was ordered by the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal to change their name so that consumers are aware of the anti-vaccination nature of the group. Lateline reported that former AVN president Meryl Dorey "claimed she was a victim of hate groups and vested interests" in response to the ruling.[109]
Information quality[edit]
Although physicians and nurses are still rated as the most trusted source for vaccine information, some vaccine-hesitant individuals report being more comfortable discussing vaccines with providers of complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments.[3] With the rise of the internet, many people have turned online for medical information.[110] In some instances, anti-vaccine activists seek to steer people away from vaccination and health-care providers and towards alternative medicines sold by certain of the activists.[111]
Anti-vaccination writings on the internet have been argued to be characterized by a number of differences from medical and scientific literature. These include: