Talk:Anti-vaccine activism

MMR vaccine

There was a moral panic in the 1990s about the MMR vaccine causing autism, this should definitely be part of the article. Would need to dig into the groups who were advocating against it, but they definitely exist. AtFirstLight (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There are still groups advocating based on that claim, despite studies thoroughly debunking the connection. Of course, for those in the opposition groups, the studies themselves are merely proof of a continuing conspiracy. BD2412 T 23:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Steve Kirsch has rebunked the debunked claims with compelling data. https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-police-testimony-peer-reviewed?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web 197.248.224.215 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to a reliable source supporting this proposition? Considering that the emergence of autism can now be detected at an age earlier than the administration of any vaccines, correlating one to the other seems like blaming potholes on seatbelts. BD2412 T 12:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it "compelling" only for random ignorant people on the internet, or has he convinced the scientific community? In the second case, you should be able to give us a far, far better source than the private blog of a anti-science layman. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This Steve Kirsch. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this one. Engineering expert, scientific layman. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

“targeted” not the right word

In the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the history section “targeted” is not the right word because the sentence can easily be read (as I read it the first time) as saying that the anti-vaxx movement has increasingly been attacking conservatives, which is the opposite of the intended meaning. The end of that sentence could be changed to something like “has increasingly been recruiting conservatives” or “has increasingly become aligned with the right wing in US politics”. NightHeron (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I think some variation of "targeted" is correct. Misinformation is specifically directed towards them and packaged to influence them, to their detriment. BD2412 T 14:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

But conservatives are not the objects of their assault on medical science. Rather, targets of their attacks have been epidemiologists, public health officials, politicians who supported lockdowns and mass vaccination, and employers, universities, etc. that imposed vaccine requirements. Just because you have in mind a different reading of the word "target", that doesn't mean that others will read it that way. The word is ambiguous and hence unclear. NightHeron (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation can "target" multiple targets in different ways. Just as anti-vaccine disinformation was once couched in language intended to appeal to liberals by characterizing profit-seeking pharmaceutical corporations as greedy capitalists, the same kinds of disinformation are now couched in terms coded to raise conservative mistrust. The results are stark; COVID-19 death rates in conservative areas are several times higher than death rates in liberal areas. BD2412 T 04:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anti-vaccine activism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anti-vaccine activism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Pepys":

• From MMR vaccine and autism: Pepys, MB (2007). "Science and serendipity". Clinical Medicine. 7 (6): 562–78. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.7-6-562. PMC 4954362. PMID 18193704.
• From Vaccine hesitancy: Pepys MB (December 2007). "Science and serendipity". Clinical Medicine. 7 (6): 562–78. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.7-6-562. PMC 4954362. PMID 18193704.

Reference named "AgeOld":

• From MMR vaccine and autism: Poland, GA; Jacobson, RM (13 January 2011). "The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists". The New England Journal of Medicine. 364 (2): 97–9. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1010594. PMID 21226573.
• From Vaccine hesitancy: Poland GA, Jacobson RM (January 2011). "The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists". The New England Journal of Medicine. 364 (2): 97–99. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1010594. PMID 21226573. S2CID 39229852.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these are nearly identical, but they should also be made identical in the references articles. I have fixed these. BD2412 T 01:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible reorganization of headings

The use of "Early history" and "Modern developments" feels awkward. I admit it might still be somewhat awkward, but would breaking the history out by century be useful? Almost all of the "early history" organizations were FORMED in the 19th century. There was a "slow" period in the early to mid 20th century, followed by the Lancet and VAERS-related events whose arcs begin in the late 20th century. The 21st century history of Anti-vaccine activism is different again, characterized by the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of social media disinformation. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to any restructuring that makes the information more accessible to the reader. BD2412 T 01:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Use of algorithms and data" section

@MaryMO (AR): I think that you added most of the content for this section? The first two paragraphs talking about using algorithms to address health equity seem off-topic for "Anti-vaccine activism". The statements say "... to address health inequities, by identifying populations that had traditionally been under-served or were at elevated risk for infection, morbidity, and mortality." which is what algorithms are used for, but unless the sources talk about Black and other under-served communities having been targeted or more susceptible to vaccine mis/dis-information, and these algorithms helping to counter that, than that content is not related to this article's topic. Thanks for your other many and large additions and improvements to this article!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Avatar317:, thanks for the feedback. I've reworked that area and broken it out into two sections. I wanted to mention both anti- and pro- vaccine use of algorithms to avoid an oversimplification that "algorithms are bad". Hopefully it'll be clearer now that I've tightened things up. Also the community outreach parts, while connected, are really a separate type of intervention for countering anti-vaccine activism. Have a good day! MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Modern organizational naming trends

It would be good to add something about how modern antivax organizations have dropped "Anti-vaccine" from their names, and instead go by things like Children's Health Defense, Children's Medical Safety Research Institute, and Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, or adopt names vaguely invoking freedom and patriotism. BD2412 T 21:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Tuskegee Syphilis Study

I feel that this is worth mention and a link in the article, but I don't know where would be the optimum place? Maybe in the area about Black communities? (algorithm section) Here's a source (in case it is not already mentioned in other sources): In Tuskegee, Painful History Shadows Efforts To Vaccinate African Americans ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been a marked use of antivax marketing directed to minority communities using rhetoric designed to appeal specifically to those communities. This is a very modern aspect of their activities. BD2412 T 01:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a slight mention of anti-vax in the Tuskegee article, but I think it does deserve far more attention; we should include this type of info that anti-vax folks use past medical violence to pitch their theories. homo momo (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked up, it appears there is an article about medical apartheid, the book, which, IIRC, argues that medical abuses and racism cause iatrophobia in minorities, which further reduces their healthcare outcomes. The medical racism does not have information about iatrophobia, but this section here does. homo momo (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fake "whistleblower" claims

I don't have my finger on a source, but another common disinformation tactic is to claim that unnamed whistleblowers or insiders in government agencies or in pharmaceutical are providing information that would call into question the safety or efficacy of vaccines. For example, a 1908 letter to the editor of the early animal rights periodical, Our Dumb Animals, claims that an unnamed government doctor told the author (anti-vaccinationist Harry B. Bradford) that the "vaccination was absolutely worthless to protect against smallpox". BD2412 T 19:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

One other thing that has been pointed out to me a lot on social media, but I have not seen in a source: claims that COVID-19 vaccines lead to an uptick in various bad health conditions based on studies of such conditions published prior to the vaccines actually being used. BD2412 T 03:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412: your second claim is completely, totally useless without reliable and, above all, neutral sources (I don't accept non-neutral sources). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Jack, your refusal to "accept non-neutral sources" (IOW a refusal to abide by NPOV and accept most RS, which happen to be "non-neutral") means you don't understand our policies here. Go back to WikiKindergarten and learn how we operate here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: "...most RS, which happen to be "non-neutral"." I agree; however, some topics need neutral sources. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be better to wait for the source(s) and then evaluate whether any non-neutrality was problematic. That can occur, but that's an editorial decision to be made later, not before. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"Go back to WikiKindergarten and learn how we operate here." I advise you to avoid these insolent phrases, I simply didn't explain myself well. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have stricken that part. Sorry about that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: don't worry, I made a mistake too, since I didn't explain myself well from the beginning. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Secondary outcome of the anti-vaccine movement

A significant harmful outcome of the anti-vaccine movement is that legitimate concerns rooted in healthy scientific inquiry may be dismissed when they are lumped in with uninformed or misinformed vaccine skepticism. This can result in a paradoxically unscientific stance, where the scientific approach is replaced by blind faith in any new drug as long as it is labeled as a vaccine. This was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, where valid concerns and side effects were initially overlooked. This further eroded public trust and further fuelled the anti-vaccine movement. Could this be a topic worth addressing in the article? Maybe in a new section specifically exploring the societal harm of the movement?

https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/5/e008684 Caste381 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The formulation regarding "any new drug as long as it is labeled as a vaccine" is not addressed in this source; it clearly identifies the COVID-19 vaccine as a vaccine, and makes no suggestion of anything not a vaccine being labelled a vaccine. Do you have any source that does support such contentions? BD2412 T 15:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. The above link does not use this specific wording. That was mine. There are however documented cases of under reported effects such as this one and this one.

The point I was trying to make is that the anti-vaccine movement is undermining objective scientific enquiry, specifically for vaccines. Caste381 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, do you mean that it is undermining objective scientific enquiry as carried out by lay persons, or undermining objective scientific enquiry as carried out by scientists in the field? BD2412 T 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The concern lies in the tendency of some medical professionals or scientists to dismiss potential side effects of vaccines early on due to confirmation bias stemming from the belief that "vaccines are safe and effective." When similar concerns are raised about other classes of drugs, the response is vastly less hostile.

My argument is that this difference arises from the assumption that questioning vaccine research or trials automatically aligns someone with the anti-vaccine movement. This bias is a direct negative consequence of the movement’s existence.

Most medical professionals routinely encounter uninformed or misinformed vaccine refusal, which can lead to a habitual dismissal of concerns. Even when those concerns are valid, as demonstrated in the cases mentioned above. Caste381 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can find sources which say that scientists are dismissing valid problems because of the a blind anti - anti-vax sentiment, then we could include that in a section.

But so far your comments sound more like Original Research, which Wikipedia does not allow: WP:NOR. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You have a good point. This is something difficult to cover while referring to more than just anecdotal sources. There is plenty of research around the link between misinformation and decline of uptake, but not much around the reasons around early dismissals of adverse effects. Thank you for your input. Caste381 (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Objectives of anti vaccine activists beyond producing vaccine phobia

Anarchy? 74.126.77.51 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The anti vaccine movement is not too dissimilar to other fringe or conspiracy theories. Most of the proponents genuinely believe to have knowledge of a higher truth, and they believe that sharing this "truth" will also benefit others. Caste381 (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I do think there is something to be said for the "boy who cried wolf" sort of effect that the reactionary dissemination of misinformation about vaccines leads to an an automatic distrust in the usual disseminators. BD2412 T 18:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. That is a very natural thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. My observation and anecdotal conclusion is that this distrust might also influence those who are not the usual disseminators, but appear instead to have reasonable concerns. Caste381 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It is hard to separate them out when the usual disseminators (and some unusual ones) began disseminating misinformation even before there was a vaccine available, and their misinformation reached those who are not the usual disseminators. BD2412 T 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)