When it comes to spreading disinformation about climate change or the risks of smoking, I can clearly see how it protects economic interests (e.g. the value of the assets of the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry). I therefore understand that these lies are (have been) regularly pushed by people who do not necessarily believe in them.
But what are the strategic considerations behind the active spread of anti-vax theories? Who gains from this? Is it just an effective topic to rile up a political base? Because it hits people right in the feels? Is it just a way to bring people together on one topic, in order to use that political base for other purposes?
Or is anti-vax disinformation really only pushed by people who believe it?
It sows distrust in authority, so that those people will listen to fringe voices. These fringe voices tend to be grifters, scamming the rubes.
Politically it’s a binary issue, no room for compromise. If you’re anti-vax, you’re voting for the Republican candidate, despite what the other guy might be offering. So, this locks in votes and also plays into the long term strategy of having an uneducated underclass incapable of critical thinking. This provides cannon fodder for the politicians, and low paid drones for the fat cats.
Yes, I see. So by now, one way for the Republican party to gain votes is to spread anti-vax disinformation.
And their followers gobble it up!
i find the anti vax stuff is because some people genuinely believe its dangerous and was pushed too fast because of money and corporate sponsors (yet those people arent against capitalism just against when capitalism doesn’t serve them)
yet a lot of the claims of myocarditis and whatever is largely unsupported by studies and currently the anti vax folks are just going waiting for a source to say theyre correct because if i want to counter antivax i show any study theyre claiming exists
they cant show studies becuase low n behold they dont exist and facebook was lying. shocker
Usually, a lot of people who are anti-vaxx are selling something as well, like books or food supplements.
Politically, if people are mistrustful of medicine, they’ll be more likely to be mistrustful of government action in general.
So that could be one explanation why it tends to be boosted by people who have an interest in a weak government.
It is also a reason why Democrats have become a lot more hostile to anti-vaxx views.
It has popped up organically my whole life, presumably from a lack of trust of pharmaceutical companies and government health agencies. Some risks of certain vaccines have been overvalued by the population and spread. Then there is the inorganic spread which has value on an intranational level. “If my rival is largely antivax I’m at an advantage” etc
The movement seems to be more about expanding its base than informing or protecting them. Once ensnared, followers will reliably go to the polls, and vote the way they are told to vote.
Being staunchly antivaxx is detrimental to good health at the personal level, and at the public health level.
Based on real world outcomes, the antivaxx lobby gets enough of their base to vote as directed, to offset any lost votes due to base members dying for lack of protection from vaccines.
I mean, they kill off only a small portion of their base with bad advice, but get the political results that they want. Why would they care?
It might be controversial, but I think people have legitimate reasons to not trust public health authorities. They have had to fess up in the past after years of misleading people about a number of things, from tobacco, sugar, alcohol, cannabis, … The Spanish flu is only called “Spanish” because Spain was the only country willing to acknowledge it during war time. It didn’t help also that more recently, the White House admitted to lying about the lack of need of face masks at the very beginning of the COVID pandemic, because they didn’t want people to take them away from hospital workers who needed them.
So with that, I understand why people will want to be selective about what public health guidelines they’ll choose to trust and not trus.
Add to that, that getting a vaccine shot is unpleasant. And consoling your baby after they got vaccinated is even more unpleasant. From there, you can understand the mental shortcut that some people make, choosing to ignore the proven impressive track record of vaccines to limit or even eradicate contagion of some diseases, and all of a sudden, all vaccines are a lie.
Not only that, but this whole thing has become a hot-button issue, and any time that happens, all logic and scientific facts are the first thing to go.
For example, there are people that are allergic to certain vaccines. That is a fact. They are a small amount of the population, but they do exist, and they will die or get really sick if they get whatever vaccine.
Try telling that to someone who blindly follows the media’s crushing message of “All vaccines are good. Anyone who doesn’t get a vaccine is a stupid, poor redneck” They will not be able to hear it. They will think you’re anti-vaxx.
Personally I think there are cultures of distrust built up by the government as an authority they have to overcome.
The methods of testing and developing these vaccines are radically different than previous vaccines. And the qualifiers of who was “at risk” and would need them were basically wide open from a government messaging standpoint.
So people naturally looked at it with skepticism. It then became a political battle. And medical officials did not do themselves any favors by making certain assertions using the same authority that turned out not to be true.
For example the initial reports of the origin of the virus being from a infectious disease lab in Wuhan, China were vehemently denied and shot down. Even those with a history of more liberal stances like John Stewart were shouted down and lampooned. The reality was they had no authority or information to based their denial of those assertions and low and behold it blew up in their face. Or the claim that even having covid previously was not enough and boosters were more effective than the real antibodies (which has never really been historically true for viruses and turns out wasn’t true for covid either. ) And socially excommunicating anyone that expressed doubt only made those with doubt see that as an affirmation. That it wasn’t based on logic or reason, just emotion.
And here’s the thing. Even if their messaging was altruistic there have been vaccines in the past that made clearance and then were recalled after testing because of side effects not found in testing. So there’s a history there. And the companies creating these vaccines have a history of covering up bad effects if it hits their bottoms line, such as the J&J aspirin or the talcum powder/baby power recalls. And that’s not to mention the history of testing on underserved communities that weren’t fully disclosed (ie:tuskeegee).
So yeha, it would make sense that there’s some new virus we have never seen and suddenly some miracle cure comes out within weeks, and there’s a huge media blitz for everyone, even those in good health witb relatively little risk factors, HAVE to get it. There was no nuance and again, while the push may have been altruistic the history shows there little that will help when the side effects emerge. And “just trust us we’re scientists” isnt enough.
Look at what happened with 9/11 cleanup crews. They have huge rates of cancer and such for cleaning those buildings up and now none of them can get treatment or even recognized that it’s a cause. Another thing Mr. Stewart goes nuts on.
So the doubt of the claims, to me, was and still is justified.
Then you should hopefully limit your distrust to Covid and not extend the same to Measles vaccine.
I was talking specifically of covid vaccinations. Conflating the way covid was pitched and the reasonable doubt people had with it, and attributing the same label you to to those that questions other vaccinations is it’s own issue.
Measles is one of the oldest vaccines out there. There’s generations of data on its efficacy.
I have been labeled anti-vax because I expressed doubts about the Covid-19 vaccine. And that’s not an accurate depiction of my stance, or of the medical decisions I made for myself and my family both during the pandemic and since (or before for that matter). In fact we required family to get tdap boosters to see my premature daughter back in the early 2010s because of pertussis and the specific risks to newborns, especially premature kids. And I couldn’t bring her home because I had a fever at the end of her multi-week NICU stay.
I agree with the stance of wanting to see effectiveness a d safety before taking the rushed vaccine. By the time it was offered to me, there was millions of people worth of data across the world. Probably the best statistics ever for a new vaccine (and basically a huge clinical trial). By the time it was widely available, (Pfizer and Moderna) you had to basically buy into conspiracy style thinking to distrust the safety or effacacy of the vaccines. I suppose you could have not thought the long term studies of similar vaccines were similar enough to take the small risk of long term effects, but that is going against all other data on all vaccines, and incongruent with taking a much larger error bar on long covid.
While true. The push was hard out the gate. With states
And there’s plenty of history of drugs being pulled after long term side effects are noted that didn’t show in trials. Less common with vaccines but still. There have been some. Flu vaccines even now do have side effect risks, not necessarily with the vaccine itself but it’s handling/storage and transport etc. One of my good friends ended up with GBS that was linked to tainted flu vaccinations. He was otherwise extremely healthy, playing tennis competitively. These are outliers and the GBS is less long term but there were some pulled for concerns with MS.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/
I am seeing some reports here and there on links to covid and birth issues. Some linked to vaccination and others to the virus itself. Don’t think there’s any settled science on it yet. This wasn’t a concern in my case, we are past child rearing age at this point. But those would have been something to consider if I was a healthy young adult, especially female. I don’t want to post any of the studies because nothing is peer reviewed but the point is, in the early stages of 2020-2021 it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a healthy adult to consider these as risks. Especially as the fatality rate of covid wasn’t nearly as high as predicted, especially in those age/risk groups.
Sure, but I think by April 2021 there was over 6 months of thousands of health care workers data, and 2 months of millions of elderly people data. Everything you risked with the vaccine was risked, at far higher rates, from getting covid. And remember - most people aren’t healthy in the US by the definition of no comorbidity.
In 2020, I was skeptical, by April 2021 the data to me was pretty clear that everything regarding covid was better for you if you had the vaccine.
I guess the big question I always had was why would you think something designed to protect you was more dangerous than something evolved or maybe designed to infect you, with no care about if it hurt you or maybe intentionally made to hurt you?
It’s kind of like saying I don’t trust these people making armored cars, thet might fail, I might have something happen inside them, whatever. I will risk going under this rockfall walking because “it’s safer”.
True. By that point for me, I had gotten it as had the wife. So we knew the outcome for our particular situations.
Don’t get me wrong. A buddy of mine had cancer in September of 2021 and on his Rec I got a vaccine to go see him and make peace.
And agree. There’s a significant percentage of folks with hypertension, one of the biggest comobidities.
I think my point is, this was an event where things like healthcare choices no longer became personal for large swaths of folks opinions. Not something I could really agree with. Especially once it was clear herd immunity wasn’t ever gonna happen. In the same way I think abortion is a medical and personal decision that the government and employers don’t really have any business regulating. My employer had contact traces that would ask deeply personal questions, like sleeping arrangements at home, and if I hugged my wife. I told them my wife was fine and was out mowing the grass and they reported me for violating isolation protocol. We live on multiple acres……
Well that is over the top. We didn’t have anything like that where I live.
“And the companies creating these vaccines have a history of covering up bad effects”
Just wanted to highlight this. Astroturfing happens. It’s even more effective when you’ve been in the market a long while and have friends in high places in other organizations.
It’s just another way hostile foreign governments (Chinese, Russian etc.) insert chaotic propaganda to exploit and widen divisions within democracies. Some influencers work as agents of these governments, while many more are using it as an opportunity to increase their own celebrity which in turn fattens their wallets.
From my viewpoint (central Canada, urban) people do not like to be controlled and mandated. So many fought back through any means necessary. That includes denial, fear mongering and trying to discredit science and fact to avoid having to stay home, social distance, and get a needle (which many people have phobias of).
I guess that it comes down to trust - many people really dont trust the goverment/establishment/authority in general. if those organizations say something, those people will then go out of their way to latch onto any information that adheres to their own specific worldview.
who gains from folks not trusting authorities? anti-authoritarians.
is it effective in sowing dissent? very much so.
you dont have to believe in something to spread information/disinformation. just look at the main stream media - they’re literally paid to tell people things, regardless of how accurate, true, false, etc the information is.
all of the above relates to just about any position, not just pro-vax/anti-vax, but basically anything.
I see. So anyone who has an interest in weakening the government, and anyone who expects to benefit from sowing dissent will have an extra incentive to push this.
I guess what remains interesting though, is that at least in the US we are seeing new forms selective anti-authoritarianism, where (state) governments simultaneously play the anti-authoritarian card regarding (e.g.) Covid policies and vaccines, but simultaneously go out of their way to dictate what books can be read in schools.
We’re not simply dealing with libertarians who just want unrestrained private capital to be free of any government intervention.
In that sense this starts to sound a bit more plausible. In the sense that its not so much about a smaller government but about a different government.
A little conspiracy theory that I made up myself is that pharmaceutical companies spread the antivax-theories themselves, to prevent the measles from going extinct like smallpox.
That sounds mad! Good work though. Do you believe it?
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned here yet is that at least in America, we have had a historic problem with minority groups (especially Black people) and distrust of the medical field in general that’s pretty freaking justified. This study speaks about it in depth. but here’s some relevant points from the abstract:
Given that the virus has hit the Black community the hardest, I am concerned now that vaccine hesitancy may perpetuate the health disparities that we are currently seeing in the numbers of infections and deaths taking place. Most studies, for instance, at this point, have found that Blacks as a community have the highest levels of individuals who state they will never get the vaccine or are not sure if they will get the vaccine, Fig. Fig.11 [7, 8]. Many studies have noted that Black people cite distrust in the government and in the medical profession. Black people cite our nation’s history of racism in medical research and in medical care as key reasons for their hesitancy [9, 10].
For some people it is a real, deep distrust in the government. Like I said though, it’s justified. You don’t have to look far to see examples of what they’re talking about. J. Marion Sims was hailed as a medical hero for developing new surgical techniques, but he practiced and developed them on non consenting black slave women and immigrant Irish women. That’s by far from the worst though, if you’ve never read of it, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study is fucking horrifying.
The Public Health Service started the study in 1932 in collaboration with Tuskegee University (then the Tuskegee Institute), a historically Black college in Alabama. In the study, investigators enrolled a total of 600 impoverished African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama.[6] Of these men, 399 had latent syphilis, with a control group of 201 men who were not infected.[5] As an incentive for participation in the study, the men were promised free medical care. While the men were provided with both medical and mental care that they otherwise would not have received,[7] they were deceived by the PHS, who never informed them of their syphilis diagnosis[6][8][9][10][11] and provided disguised placebos, ineffective methods, and diagnostic procedures as treatment for “bad blood”.[12]
The men were initially told that the experiment was only going to last six months, but it was extended to 40 years.[5] After funding for treatment was lost, the study was continued without informing the men that they would never be treated. None of the infected men were treated with penicillin despite the fact that, by 1947, the antibiotic was widely available and had become the standard treatment for syphilis.[13]
The study continued, under numerous Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination on November 16 of that year.[14] By then, 28 patients had died directly from syphilis, 100 died from complications related to syphilis, 40 of the patients’ wives were infected with syphilis, and 19 children were born with congenital syphilis.[15]
This study kept uneducated, rural black people from receiving adequate care for their known Syphilis infections for TWENTY FIVE YEARS after we knew about how to treat the disease. People were infected. Children were infected. People died from this study.
For background, I’m very pro-vaccine, so much so that I wanted to study biomedical sciences and immunology. But I think it’s extremely important to realize the sociological backgrounds as to why some people distrust the system and are suspicious of “free medical care” especially when sponsored by the government. The first study I linked talks about it, and I definitely agree that there is SO much work to be done in the US around trust in public health institutions.
I actually got perma-banned from a subreddit for expressing my opinions on this.
Some people get downright hostile about anti-vax ideology. However I think there is some cause for concern there. Keep in mind just getting an injection carries some risk regardless of what’s in it. I don’t see any economic or political motivation behind anti-vax ideology other than a legitimate concern for public safety. No doubt there’s economic motivation for pro-vax ideology.
Some may take anti-vax ideology to an extreme, but then some may be too trusting of the system. There are wide opinions about many of the systems we live under, not just vaccination. I’m less trusting of all the systems that make up our society more than I’ve ever been. There’s a number of reasons I feel that way. The main reason is I simply don’t trust our leaders and institutions to make public safety a priority. I mean how many times do they have to demonstrate this before the average person gets the memo.
Does your distrust also include peer reviewed science?
Less so than other institutions that are driven by corporate profits. However, the scientific community is not devoid of corruption either. You can find a scientist to say whatever you want with the right paycheck, happens all the time.
There was this anti vax campaign that had links to Russia
There has been speculation about the Russian connections to this scandal and the interests of the Russian state in promoting its own vaccine - Sputnik V.
What are the strategic considerations behind the active spread of anti-vax theories?
The downard spiral toward idiocracy
