Vaccine Rejection: A Flat Earth Theory for the 21st Century

18 Jan

The flat-earthers are back!

Well, not exactly, but their descendants have come up with the flat-earth equivalent for the 21st century. They reject vaccination.

Vaccine rejectionists are all over the web promoting the “dangers” of vaccination. Vaccine rejectionism isn’t about vaccination, though. It’s all about parents and how they wish to view themselves.

It is important to understand that vaccine rejection is not based on science. There is no scientific data that supports vaccine rejection. Indeed vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements of all time and virtually every accusation about vaccines by vaccine rejectionists is factually false.

Vaccines have been around for more than 200 years, and vaccine rejectionists have been around for almost as long. Over the years, they have made countless accusations about the “risks” of vaccines, and they have been wrong every single time. Despite the fact that vaccine rejectionists have been 100% wrong in their understanding of vaccines, statistics, risks and claims of specific dangers, they still have a large following. In large measure that is because the cultural claims of vaccine rejectionists resonate with prevailing cultural assumptions. Vaccine rejection is a social construct that has little if anything to do with objective reality or science.

‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK (Hobson-West, Sociology of Health & Illness Vol. 29 No. 2 2007, pp. 198–215) explores these cultural attitudes. The first social construct is a re-imagining of the meaning of risk:

A primary way this is achieved … is to construct risk as unknowns… [This] serves as an example of how the realist image of risk as a representation of reality is undermined. In the realist account, uncertainty and unknowns may be recognised but are usually framed as temporary phases that are overcome by more research. For the [vaccine rejectionists], there is a more fundamental ignorance about the body and health and disease that will not necessarily be overcome by more research. Interestingly, this ignorance is constructed as a collective – ‘we’ as a society do not know the true impact of mass vaccination or the causes of health and disease.

The problem that vaccine rejectionism is based on false premises is elided by ignoring the actual scientific data and focusing instead on whether parents agree with health professionals or refuse to trust them. Agreement with doctors is constructed as a negative and refusal to trust is constructed as a positive cultural attribute:

Clear dichotomies are constructed between blind faith and active resistance and uncritical following and critical thinking. Non-vaccinators or those who question aspects of vaccination policy are not described in terms of class, gender, location or politics, but are ‘free thinkers’ who have escaped from the disempowerment that is seen to characterise vaccination…

This characterization of vaccine rejectionists can be unpacked even further; not surprisingly, vaccine rejectionists are portrayed as laudatory and other parents are denigrated.

… instead of good and bad parent categories being a function of compliance or non-compliance with vaccination advice … the good parent becomes one who spends the time to become informed and educated about vaccination…

… [vaccine rejectionists] construct trust in others as passive and the easy option. Rather than trust in experts, the alternative scenario is of a parent who becomes the expert themselves, through a difficult process of personal education and empowerment…

The ultimate goal is to become “empowered”:

Finally, the moral imperative to become informed is part of a broader shift, evident in the new public health, for which some kind of empowerment, personal responsibility and participation are expressed in highly positive terms.

So vaccine rejectionism is about the parents and how they would like to see themselves, not about vaccines and not about children. In the socially constructed world of vaccine rejectionists, risks can never be quantified and are always “unknown”. Parents are divided into those (inferior) people who are passive and blindly trust authority figures and (superior) rejectionists who are “educated” and “empowered” by taking “personal responsibility”.

This view depends on a deliberate re-definition of all the relevant terms, however, and that re-definition is unjustified and self aggrandizing. The risks of vaccination are not unknown. Believing that vaccines work is not a matter of “trust”; it is reality. Questioning authority is not the same as being “educated”; indeed, it isn’t even related. Lacking even basic knowledge of immunology and rejecting medical facts is not a sign of education, independent thinking or taking personal responsibility. It is a lack of education at best, and self serving, self aggrandizing ignorance at worst.


5 Responses to “Vaccine Rejection: A Flat Earth Theory for the 21st Century”

  1. gmoney January 18, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    Oooo i just annoyed some of my friends by sharing this on facebook. Hopefully, many others do the same.

  2. Rebecca January 19, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    What you’ve laid out here looks more like an approach to “self-actualization” in the old Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs sense. Since our safety (i.e. freedom from contagious disease) is so assured in modern society, these folks are free to develop an individual and group identity that allows them to gather and support each other (“love/belonging”), reassure each other that they are wiser and more educated than others (“esteem”), and smugly convince themselves that they, and their children, are reaching their highest potential as human beings by rejecting vaccines… all of which does not yet undermine their base need for safety because the rest of the herd is still protecting them from harm. It’s quite warped, really.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD January 19, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

      That’s exactly what seems to be happening. Many vaccine rejectionists confuse self-actualization with scientific knowledge. It’s all about feeling “educated” with no regard to whether what they’ve “learned” is actually true.

  3. gwynarina January 19, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    Phew–this topic is so very ripe for discussion! Thanks for bringing it up. The idea of questioning authority vs. educating oneself is particularly interesting: I would say that the process of educating oneself on a topic IS related to questioning authority, in that the former often begins with the latter. I also don’t think that doing either of these things is something that should be shunned or discouraged (whether it’s in the realm of health, science, politics, or virtually anything else). Our leaders (in all areas) are fallible, and they often have their own goals in mind. Conducting one’s own research and gathering one’s own data is something that should be encouraged–why else do we have the internet? Why else do we train our children to be critical thinkers? (Why else is this blog entitled “Skeptixx”?) However, when one conducts that research and comes up empty-handed, but continues to obstinately refuse to accept the facts that have been offered by experts and supported by evidence–well, that’s when “education” is no longer education, but becomes blind faith and indoctrination…neither of which has a place in the scientific community.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD January 19, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

      The central point of my post is that questioning authority has nothing to do with scientific research. For example, reading the websites and books of creationists who question the authority of evolutionary biologists is NOT scientific research; it’s nothing more than reading drivel created by people who have little or no knowledge of biology.

      Similarly, reading the nonsense spewed forth by Jenny McCarthy and compatriots is NOT doing research on vaccination. In order to research vaccination, you need to read and understand the works of authorities in immunology, epidemiology and public health. If you don’t read the scientific literature on those topics, it is impossible to be “educated” about vaccination.

Come on, tell us what you really think.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: