6.0 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-vaccine activism | 5/8 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccine_activism | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:10:46.395880+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== Misrepresentation === 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. 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.
=== Information quality === 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 medical (CAM) treatments. With the rise of the internet, many people have turned online for medical information. In some instances, anti-vaccine activists seek to steer people away from vaccination and health-care providers and towards alternative medicines sold by certain activists. Anti-vaccination writings on the internet have been argued to be characterized by a number of differences from medical and scientific literature. These include:
Promiscuous copying and reduplication. Ignoring corrections, even when an initial report or data point is shown to be false. Lack of references, difficulty in checking sources and claims. Personal attacks on individual doctors. A high degree of interlinkage between sites. Dishonest or fallacious arguments. For example, a 2020 study examined Instagram posts related to the HPV vaccine, which can prevent some types of cancer. Anti-vaccine posts were more likely than pro-vaccine posts to be sent by non-healthcare individuals, to include personal narratives, and to reference other Instagram users, links, or reposts. Anti-vaccine posts were also more likely to involve concealment or distortion, particularly conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims. In total, 72.3% of antivaccine posts made inaccurate claims, including exaggerating the risks of vaccines and minimizing risks of disease.
=== Disinformation tactics === A number of specific disinformation tactics have been noted in anti-vaccination messaging, including: Conspiracy theories alleging lies, trickery, cover-ups, and secret knowledge Messages crafted for psychological appeal rather than truthfulness Appeals to purported authorities falsely represented as being experts in their field Impossible expectations: claiming that anything less than 100% certainty in a scientific claim implies doubt and that the existence of doubt disproves the existence of consensus Selective use and interpretation of evidence ("cherry-picking"): using obscure or debunked sources while ignoring counter-evidence and scientific consensus Result-oriented revision of claims' content: Continually introducing new claims alleging vaccines to be harmful; moving to new claims in support of a preconceived conclusion when existing claims in support of that conclusion are shown to be false Misrepresentation, appeals to logical fallacies, and appeals to improper analogy (i.e., to analogy between cases that do not in fact share the parameter[s] on which the claimed analogy is based) Personal attacks on critics, ranging from online criticism, public revelation of personal details, and threats to offline activities such as legal actions, targeting of employers, and violence Targeting of the vaccine produced by the People's Republic of China: During the pandemic, as retaliation for the PRC's attempts to blame the United States for the pandemic, The Pentagon targeted the PRC's Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine by spreading anti-vaccine misinformation in the Philippines. Assertions that the existence of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act implies that the risk of injury by vaccines is high rather than very low
=== Economics of vaccine disinformation === Information is more likely to be believed after repeated exposure. Disinformers use this illusory truth effect as a tactic, repeating false information to make it feel familiar and influence belief. Anti-vaccine activists have leveraged social media to develop interconnected networks of influencers that shape people's opinion, recruit allies, impact policy and monetize vaccine-related disinformation. In 2022, the Journal of Communication published a study of the political economy underlying vaccine disinformation. Researchers identified 59 English-language "actors" that provided "almost exclusively anti-vaccination publications". Their websites monetized disinformation through appeals for donations, sales of content-based media and other merchandise, third-party advertising, and membership fees. Some maintained a group of linked websites, attracting visitors with one site and appealing for money and selling merchandise on others. Their activities to gain attention and obtain funding displayed a "hybrid monetization strategy". They attracted attention by combining eye-catching aspects of "junk news" and online celebrity promotion. At the same time, they developed campaign-specific communities to publicize and legitimize their position, similar to radical social movements.
=== Misrepresentation of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System === In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is used to gather information on potential vaccine adverse reactions, but is susceptible to unverified reports, misattribution, underreporting, and inconsistent data quality. Raw, unverified data from VAERS has often been used by the anti-vaccine community to justify misinformation regarding the safety of vaccines; it is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused an adverse event, or how common the event might be.