Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement
Highlights
► Web 2.0 and the postmodern medical paradigm aid in spreading anti-vaccine messages. ► Evidence suggests online information may influence vaccination decisions. ► Tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccine movement are described. ► Awareness of anti-vaccine techniques is needed to recognize disingenuous claims.
Introduction
Vaccinations are a significant public health achievement, contributing to dramatic declines in morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases [1]. However, by reading certain websites, one might be persuaded to think the opposite – that vaccines are actually ineffective, useless, or even dangerous. These are merely some of the arguments posed by the anti-vaccination movement, an amorphous group holding diverse views that nevertheless shares one core commonality: an opposition to vaccines. The popularity and pervasiveness of the Internet today has facilitated the transmission of such beliefs.
Many people search online for health information, and the information found impacts patient decision-making; it is therefore essential to understand what is shared online. This paper provides an overview of how the new generation of the Internet (Web 2.0) and its emphasis on user-generated content has combined with characteristics of the current postmodern medical paradigm, creating a new environment for sharing health information. The anti-vaccination movement has taken advantage of this milieu to disseminate its messages. Strategies the movement employs, found on various anti-vaccine websites, are then described; this includes various tactics the movement engages in (e.g. misrepresenting science, shifting hypotheses, censorship, attacking their critics), as well as commonly argued tropes (e.g. that they are “pro-safe vaccines”, that vaccine advocates are “shills”, that vaccines are unnatural, etc.). Such narratives may be compelling, and help anti-vaccination protests persist despite a lack of scientific support. Identifying and analyzing these tactics and tropes is not only an important exercise in critically evaluating medical advice found online, but also a necessary step in ensuring individuals searching online are not misinformed.
Section snippets
Web 2.0, health communication, and the postmodern medical paradigm
Though the exact definition of the term “Web 2.0” is debated, its meaning is generally derived from comparison against the first generation of the Internet – Web 1.0 [2]. The main difference between the two is the amount of interaction and user-generated content; whereas Web 1.0 content was controlled by the provider, Web 2.0 allows users to create information. Anybody can contribute content via blogging, photo-sharing, video-uploading, and more. The creation and sharing of user-generated
The influence of the Internet on vaccination decisions
Eighty percent of Internet users search for health information online [21]. Those most likely to do so are adults providing unpaid care for loved ones, such as children. The most recent statistics available show 16% of seekers searched online for vaccination information, and of this group, 70% say what they found influenced their treatment decisions [22]. Surveys indicate the Internet now rivals physicians as the leading source of health advice [3].
Despite anti-vaccine messages being more
The online anti-vaccination community
Anti-vaccine sentiments are not a new phenomenon. They can be traced back to the origins of vaccinology, with little change since [52], [53]. Pinpointing the beginning of the modern-day anti-vaccination movement may depend on one's age. The airing of a 1982 television documentary, DPT: Vaccine Roulette [54], prompted thousands of parents to withhold pertussis vaccines, inundated pharmaceutical companies with personal-injury lawsuits (many then stopped producing vaccines), and led the US
Conclusion
The techniques used by the anti-vaccination movement are cunning, for not only are their protests camouflaged in unobjectionable rhetoric such as “informed consent”, “health freedom”, and “vaccine safety”, they take advantage of the current postmodern medical paradigm. Calls to “do your own research before vaccinating” dovetail with the postmodern characteristics of patient empowerment and shared decision-making, where individuals play a more involved role in their healthcare. The Internet
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the various reviewers, whose suggestions were helpful in strengthening the focus of this paper.
Conflicts of interest statement: The author was invited to speak at the Immunization Action Coalition's Social Media Summit in June 2010, where she received an honorarium. This work was undertaken independent of any funding sources.
References (236)
Postmodern medicine
Lancet
(1999)A postmodern Pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet
Vaccine
(2010)Emerging and continuing trends in vaccine opposition website content
Vaccine
(2011)- et al.
A taxonomy of reasoning flaws in the anti-vaccine movement
Vaccine
(2007) - et al.
“All manner of ills”: the features of serious diseases attributed to vaccination
Vaccine
(2010) Ethical analyses of vaccines grown in human cell strains derived from abortion: arguments and Internet search
Vaccine
(2004)- et al.
Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage on YouTube
Am J Prev Med
(2008) - et al.
An analysis of the human papilloma virus vaccine debate on MySpace blogs
Vaccine
(2010) - et al.
Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story
Lancet
(1998) - et al.
Parents’ vaccination comprehension and decisions
Vaccine
(2008)