Exploring the impact of vaccines on mortality and life expectancy while debunking the ‘anti-vax’ narrative
Vaccines have long been at the forefront of medical innovations, preventing death and diseases worldwide. They have eradicated smallpox, which killed an estimated 300 million people in the twentieth century, and reduced the global cases of polio by more than 99 percent. It is also estimated that almost two million deaths are prevented each year by the measles vaccination program alone. The significance of vaccination extends beyond these examples, but these brief cases demonstrate their undeniable efficacy. Yet, for those who persist to advocate for the anti-vaccination narrative, no amount of evidence can overcome stubborn misconceptions, ignorance, and distrust.
Among the anti-vaxxers’ claims, the most persistent belief is that vaccines cause autism. This initially arose from Andrew Wake’s 1998 article, now fully retracted, which claimed that eight of the 12 vaccinated children being studied developed autism. The study was unscientific: it neglected control groups, hand-selected specific cases, and excluded the true number of children studied. Following this extreme claim, 16 large population-based studies examined and found no link between the measles (MMR) vaccine, the number of vaccines given, and autism. Yet, regardless of the scientific evidence, concerned parents were quick to associate the recently administered MMR vaccine to the developing symptoms of autism. This misconception may have persisted into modern times as a consequence of the MMR vaccine being administered at the same age when early behavioural signs of autism begin to appear.
The growth of social media has platformed and amplified these misconceptions, allowing misinformation and anecdotal experiences to gain more traction than scientific evidence. Celebrities in particular have played a role in fueling the anti-vaccination narrative by voicing personal hesitancy over vaccinations. Jenny McCarthy is one example of a celebrity who has been extremely vocal of her belief that the vaccine caused her son Evan’s autism—a correlation that has been debunked by numerous scientific studies. For audience members who do not fact-check or engage with medical studies, these anecdotal claims can appear credible because they come from a trusted figure. Figures like Donald Trump have similarly indirectly pushed the anti-vax narrative through his contention with scientific data and public health recommendations. Consequently, followers can become more skeptical of vaccinations and medical advice when it contradicts the views of a familiar celebrity figure. This effect is magnified by parasocial relationships, in which people feel personally connected to celebrities, resulting in the authority of experts being ignored in favour of the celebrity’s influence. This is what can often lead to an echo chamber of anecdotal evidence, thus enabling the spread of the anti-vax narrative.
Despite all the scientific evidence refuting anti-vax claims, how does the anti-vax narrative remain so powerful? One of the last rationales lies within trust, which forms the foundation of all decision-making, superseding education, facts, and logic. For some anti-vaxxers, it is less about the science itself, and more about the distrust in the producer, and distributor. This skepticism is not baseless, as ‘Big Pharma’ companies have historically exaggerated the beneficial effects and downplayed the side effects of products. Most notoriously known is Purdue Pharma’s false advertising of oxycodone as a non-addictive drug for chronic pain, leading to what is now known as the opioid crisis. As a result, profit-driven cases like this have only reinforced the belief that other medical interventions, including vaccines, may also be misrepresented.
Evidently, the anti-vax narrative seems to reflect a lack of trust rather than a lack of data. While vaccines have saved countless lives, statistics alone cannot mend individuals’ distrust in health organizations and pharmaceutical companies. It is worsened by the spread of anecdotes and misinformation online, reinforcing content that is often rewarded because of its controversy. To dismantle this narrative, health organizations need to be transparent with vaccine effects and educate the public through social media, where misconceptions thrive. Similarly, social media companies need to take responsibility for platforming harmful narratives by providing links to peer reviewed articles disproving anti-vax misconceptions. This is just a small dose of the vaccine necessary to combat the anti-vax epidemic.