In recent years, the Anti-vaxxer movement has been on the rise. People who distrust or fear vaccines have been vocal for decades, but it is undeniable that they are gaining greater prominence in public discourse, fueled by organizations (e.g., Children's Health Defense, National Vaccine Information Center) that promote the conspiracy-based rhetoric alleging that common childhood vaccines cause autism.
The overwhelming body of scientific evidence has established that there is no such relationship, yet the myth being perpetrated is leading to many children not being vaccinated. Not surprisingly, we are seeing a sudden resurgence of diseases that had once been successfully eradicated, such as mumps and measles. It seems a foregone conclusion that these diseases are resurfacing as a direct impact of these “pseudoscientific” allegations“.
As we witness the birth of yet another public health emergency, these concerns are now compounded by the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis. Rattled by nearly half a million deaths, we find ourselves in a position where the effective widespread distribution and administration of vaccines is absolutely critical to saving thousands of lives and overcoming the viral menace.
Yet, despite this dire need, Anti-vaxxers have further mobilized a full-throated effort to undermine public trust in vaccinations to eradicate this pandemic. Beliefs behind the rejection of vaccines are buoyed by a small number of studies that have not passed scientific muster, which are then overinterpreted to support questionable motives. This trend has already had devastating impacts on public health. Disinformation campaigns and fear tactics are directly influencing the public’s willingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccine, which could result in countless more deaths.
Science uses widely accepted standards of inquiry to inform beliefs, even when the data may at times be at odds with our preconceived view of the world. However, now, in the age of social media and increasingly comprehensive and penetrating platforms for disseminating information/ideas, people have been better able to confirm their biases than ever before. Millions have been persuaded that our scientific infrastructure is compromised thanks to targeted marketing campaigns that take advantage of people’s otherwise healthy skepticism.
On the other hand, scientific processes for discovering truth does not imply a complete or infallible understanding of truth. But simply because science does not always render the whole truth and at times is eventually disproven and revised, we must not diminish its stature as the grandest and most reliable method for determining the truth that humans have at our disposal.
Knowing the “truth”—to the extent science allows—is only half the battle. Being mindful of how we message that information is also critical. For example, take policy guidance around wearing masks conveyed by media outlets and the government alike. Messaging from both sources was frankly perceived as arbitrary, inconsistent and contradictory to most people. Many became frustrated as the pandemic progressed, uncertain as to whether masks were effective and whether they were helpful, harmful or simply unnecessary.
Skepticism is understandable in this situation, with the unfortunate consequence of sowing distrust in our scientists, doctors, and institutions. At the end of the day, it is equally important to ensure that public health messages are not only rooted in science, but that we also consider how they will be interpreted by various constituent groups.
A more effective messaging campaign regarding mask wearing would have conveyed that this is a novel virus, with some knowns and many unknowns from the outset, and that public health measures are based on our scientific understanding of any given phenomenon at that point in time. Therefore, the current guidance is based on the BEST available information to protect public safety and, as our knowledge evolves, so will that guidance.
Instead, however, our inconsistent response to the pandemic opened the door for an opinion-based narrative fueled by political rancor, resulting in large swaths of our population refusing to wear masks and contributing to community spread. This distrust of masks has carried over to distrust of the vaccines, with some experts thinking it may be necessary to resort to “Draconian” measures—mandating vaccines—to ensure that we, as a population, can survive this virus. Had we initiated an apolitical national campaign informed by science, we attest that everybody would be clamoring to receive the vaccine—making herd immunity possible—and the debate about mandating it would be entirely unnecessary.
This expansion of disinformation is truly threatening the health of our society.
As stated by Representative Jamie Raskin about his son who tragically took his life on Dec. 31, 2000: “…he lived and acted as though the truth were true. The things that we say are our values and principles, he knew they only have meaning if we act as if they're true, if we make them real. And so we can't let them be empty rhetoric.”
Mr. Daniel Shapiro is a case manager for disabled homeless adults in Montgomery County, Maryland and a member of National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives. Dr. Diana Fishbein is the Director of Translational Neuro-Prevention Research in the FPG Child Development Institute at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, part-time research faculty at the Pennsylvania State University, and co-director of the National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives.
In the meantime, tell your friends!