ANTI-VAXX ATTACKS

COVID VACCINES MINISERIES PART 4: YOU MIGHT BE AN ANTI-VAXXER IF…

Vaccination is the most important thing we can do to end the COVID-19 pandemic, yet vaccination rates in the United States are stagnating ^1,2 . Although access is still a barrier for some, most of the yet-unvaccinated in the US are vaccine-hesitant or outright anti-vaxx ³ . Last week in Part 3, we learned about the history of the anti-vaxx movement and how it has found its home on social media, where misinformation spreads like wildfire. It’s likely that you personally know someone that has fallen prey to this dangerous anti-vaxx content. So what can you do to help? In Part 4 of our COVID-19 Vaccines miniseries (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 here), we’ll discuss the main arguments that anti-vaxxers use to justify their beliefs and point out the issues with these arguments. Understanding the flaws in their logic will not only make you more resilient to misinformation yourself, but also might help you change someone’s mind.

The anti-vaxx arguments that persist today are reflections of both old arguments taken from the past couple hundred years of anti-vaccine movements and new rumors started by propagandists. A recent meta-analysis ⁴ looked at 71 different studies that each probed people about their vaccine beliefs using open-ended questions. The most common anti-vaccine arguments were about adverse effects. People thought that vaccines could cause illnesses like autism, or that taking too many vaccines as a child could “overload” the immune system. Other concerns were that vaccines are not well studied enough, or that vaccines simply aren’t effective for everyone. The next most common arguments centered around people’s distrust of the system. People cited concerns about vaccine producers’ profit motives and expressed mistrust in doctors and public health officials. The third group of arguments centered on the lack of necessity. These people believed that immunity from getting the actual disease is better than a vaccine, that “natural” remedies could cure illnesses, that vaccine-preventable diseases are not actually that bad, or that vaccines are “unnatural”. Some less-common arguments included concern for vaccine mandates, fear of “herd mentality”, or defense of the “parent’s right to choose”, which all relate to people’s desire for autonomy. Lastly, some people expressed moral concern that some vaccine ingredients are derived from fetuses ⁴ . Aside from the personal autonomy arguments, all of these anti-vaxx arguments are scientifically untrue ^5,6,7 . So why do they persist? Sometimes, it doesn’t come down to what anti-vaxxers say, but how they say it. Here, we’ll look at a few of the tactics, fallacies, and tropes that anti-vaccine groups use to manipulate people into agreeing with them (all summarized from ⁸ ).

OVERALL APPROACHES⁸

• Skewing the Science: Anti-vaxxers criticize and reject scientific studies when they do not support their beliefs, but praise studies when they do. They are often very vocal about the need for additional research, yet they ignore any new research that doesn’t support their beliefs. Adding to the hypocrisy, anti-vaxxers often point out conflicts of interest when it benefits them, but ignore similar conflicts when it hurts them. For example, they are quick to point out when a pharmaceutical company sponsors a vaccine study, but stay silent when anti-vaxx organizations and personal injury lawyers sponsor vaccine injury studies. One example is the Fourteen Studies website, which argues for a link between vaccines and autism by ranking the “quality” of scientific studies on the topic. Quality, by their definition, is the strength of support the study gives for the vaccine-autism link.

Figure 1: Anti-vaxxers pick and choose facts.

• Shifting hypotheses: Anti-vaxxers change their theories when seeing evidence rejecting their first hypothesis. For example, some anti-vaxxers who initially believed vaccines caused autism gradually shifted to believing that mercury in vaccines caused autism. And when mercury was banned and autism rates did not go down, anti-vaxxers changed their mind again, suggesting that too many vaccines or ambiguous “toxins” in vaccines were to blame. While there is nothing wrong with adapting your opinion when provided with new evidence, the anti-vaxxers used this tactic to force their message to continue despite the new evidence, instead of actually accepting the science.
• Censorship: Many anti-vaxx forums specifically prohibit pro-vaccination views on their comment boards, removing pro-vaccine comments and censoring conflicting viewpoints. Hypocritically, anti-vaxxers also claim that they are being oppressed and censored when social media removes advertising from their content or adds “possible misinformation” labels to their posts.

ANTI-VAXXER FALLACIES⁸

• “I’m not anti-vaccine, I’m pro-safe-vaccines”: Because everyone can get behind the idea of increased safety testing, this argument seems almost legitimate. Anti-vaxxers use this argument along with exaggerated information about vaccine risks, and listeners can’t really refute it without seeming like a bad person.

Figure 2: Anti-vaxxers try to rebrand, but they are still the same.

• “Vaccines are toxic”: Here, anti-vaxxers prey upon the fact that long, hard-to-pronounce chemical names seem scary. Even though many of these “toxic chemicals” are found in the body naturally, accumulate via natural activities (like breastfeeding), or are present in vaccines at 1,000s of times lower doses than would be even remotely harmful, this argument works because people fear what they do not fully understand.

Figure 3: Meme illustrating the flawed logic anti-vaxxers use to scare people with long chemical names.

• “I have to choose between diseases and vaccine injuries/Vaccines should be 100% safe”: Here, anti-vaxxers draw an arbitrary line tolerating 0 vaccine side effects, while being completely okay with all of the preventable illnesses and deaths among the unvaccinated. With this argument, they also imply that there are only two possible outcomes, getting a terrible disease or getting a vaccine side effect. It ignores the most common outcome, that vaccinated individuals will neither get the disease nor a side effect. In addition, the argument makes the two options seem more or less equally terrible - while also implying that having a child with autism is worse than having a child die.

Figure 4: Facebook comment illustrating the flawed logic of the “100% safe” trope.

• “You can’t prove vaccines are safe”: This is a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach that places the burden of proof on vaccine advocates to prove vaccines are safe rather than on anti-vaxxers to prove that they are harmful. People who use this tactic either ignore the abundance of evidence supporting vaccine safety or they criticize the studies as not perfect. Meanwhile, they make no attempt to scientifically prove that vaccines are harmful.
• “Vaccines didn’t save us”: Anti-vaxxers use this to argue against the necessity of vaccines, claiming that cleaner drinking water, better health care, and less crowding are instead responsible for improved quality of life. And while these things have certainly improved human health and reduced mortality, the evidence clearly shows that the incidence of disease has decreased since the introduction of vaccines.

Figure 5: Meme illustrating the flawed logic of the “vaccines didn’t save us” trope as well as the failure to understand the danger of these diseases.

• “Vaccines are unnatural”: Here, anti-vaxxers equate “natural” with “good” and “unnatural” with “bad”. They usually ignore the fact that getting dangerous diseases is both “natural” and causes unnecessary deaths, which is certainly bad. They also conveniently ignore the fact that good things they use all the time, like glasses, indoor plumbing, water treatment plants, and nylon clothes are also “unnatural”.

Figure 6: Facebook comment illustrating the hypocrisy of anti-vaxxers selectively trusting doctors and selectively accepting modern medical technologies.

• “Galileo was persecuted too”: Anti-vaxxers use this argument to claim that they are visionaries speaking the truth, and that eventually, people will come around to their way of thinking. However, in his time Galileo did not have hundreds of studies from independent groups backing up his claims, while today, there are hundreds of studies supporting vaccination.
• “So many people can’t all be wrong”: Just because something is popular does not make it true. In addition, this argument relies on the perceived large population of anti-vaxxers. Their online presence is inflated, but they are actually in the minority.
• “Skeptics believe…”: This is a version of the straw-man argument, in which a person creates an exaggerated version of their opponent’s argument, then shoots it down. Anti-vaxxers use this strategy to assert that pro-vaxxers believe ALL vaccines are safe, ALL people should be forcibly vaccinated, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines you could give a person at once. Obviously, vaccine advocates do not actually believe these inflated claims.
• “You’re in the pocket of big pharma”: In the US, pharmaceutical companies are huge businesses that generate billions of dollars in profit. Because of this, anti-vaxxers claim that pro-vaccine authors and advocates are being paid to disseminate propaganda. This ignores the fact that a central regulatory body, the FDA, evaluates every vaccine before it can be used. It also ignores the fact that university and government scientists (with no connection to big pharma) advocate for vaccine science, and that doctors generally have their patients’ best interests at heart.
• “I don’t believe in coincidences”: With this argument, anti-vaxxers associate unrelated events, like a child being diagnosed with autism or even getting hit by a car, with the fact that the child was recently given a vaccine. This blatantly ignores the fact that car accidents aren’t even biological, autism diagnostic criteria have changed over the years, and that autism awareness has increased substantially over the past decade.

Figure 12: Facebook comments showing anti-vaxxers connecting clearly unrelated events to vaccination.

• “I’m an expert on my own child”: Again, this relates to the modern day notion that anyone can be an expert. It renders the meaning of expertise meaningless, so doctors and scientists are immediately discredited. It also implies that anecdotal evidence (one person’s story) is better evidence than actual scientific studies, which collect not one, but hundreds or even thousands of people’s stories.

CONCLUSION

As you can see, anti-vaxxers use a wide variety of tactics, hoping that at least one of them will be enough to convince an undecided person. Check out this paper ⁸ for even more elaboration on each of these strategies. Understanding the flawed reasoning that goes into each of these arguments will make you more likely to recognize and resist these types of fallacies in other areas of your life. In an era where misinformation can travel at the speed of light, logical reasoning and critical thinking are more important than ever.

REFERENCES

1. Hannah Ritchie, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, Diana Beltekian, Edouard Mathieu, Joe Hasell, Bobbie Macdonald, Charlie Giattino, Cameron Appel, Lucas Rodés-Guirao and Max Roser (2020) - "Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
2. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay, and Michael Shear. “Covid News: Biden Calls For New Vaccination Push.” The New York Times, 14 July 2021, www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/06/world/covid-19-vaccine-coronavirus-updates.
3. Engber, Daniel. “America Is Now in the Hands of the Vaccine-Hesitant.” The Atlantic, 23 Mar. 2021, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/america-is-now-in-the-hands-of-the-vaccine-hesitant/618352.
4. Gidengil, Courtney, et al. “Beliefs around Childhood Vaccines in the United States: A Systematic Review.” Vaccine, vol. 37, no. 45, 2019, pp. 6793–802. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.08.068.
5. “Vaccines and Diseases They Prevent: Common Questions | CDC.” Vaccines & Immunizations, CDC, 12 July 2018, www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/common-faqs.htm.
6. “Common Parental Concerns.” American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatrics, July 2018, www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/immunizations/Pages/Common-Parental-Concerns.aspx.
7. “Vaccines and Immunization: Myths and Misconceptions.” World Health Organization, 19 Oct. 2020, www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/vaccines-and-immunization-myths-and-misconceptions.
8. Kata, Anna. “Anti-Vaccine Activists, Web 2.0, and the Postmodern Paradigm – An Overview of Tactics and Tropes Used Online by the Anti-Vaccination Movement.” Vaccine, vol. 30, no. 25, 2012, pp. 3778–89. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.