Because Anti-Vaccine Websites Aren't As Scientific As They Seem

The internet plays a large role in how we obtain information in today's world. It has made all kinds of information that was previously hard to come by available to the general public, and helped many people improve their lives in all kinds of ways. There are some problems with this mode of data collection and decision making, though.

One of the problems is that factual information may be available, but hard to interpret to the general public — particularly when it comes to complex subject matter including immunization. Another major problem is that any person with a computer and a modem can go ahead and put information that is not factually correct out there, and manage to make it look scientifically accurate (particularly to someone who does not have a deep understanding of the given topic).

Anna Kata is a professor of anthropology at McMaster University. Her paper, A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet, investigated how reliable the information presented on the most popular anti-vaccine websites is. The full paper is available from the links box below, for anyone who is interested.

Americans performing a Google search on keywords like “vaccine” and “vaccination” are likely to run into anti-vaccine websites by chance, while all who actively look for anti-vaccine sites will find them.

What do these sites say about vaccines? Kata found that all of the websites she examined claimed that vaccines are poison, but that they neglect to mention that vaccine ingredients (like mercury and formaldehyde) do not appear in quantities toxic to humans. Yet, all sites claimed that these ingredients cause illnesses — including AIDS, diabetes, cancer and autism.

The most popular anti-vaccine sites also claim that vaccines are a conspiracy to make money, and that the true rate of adverse reactions to vaccines is kept from the general public. Most anti-vaccine sites purport that vaccines do not work, and that vaccine-preventable diseases aren't serious. Kata reports:

“Half the websites asserted that VPDs are trivial. One website described smallpox as “harmless under proper treatment [. . .] And not considered deadly with the use of homeopathy [. . .] And it certainly didn’t appear to be that infectious, if infectious at all”. Another site maintained that infections such as measles improved a child’s health, pronouncing, “the symptoms do not constitute the disease but the cure”. Serious complications of VPDs were not acknowledged – for example, that in developed countries, 1 in 1000 children with measles develop encephalitis and 1–2 in 1000 die.”

Because everyone knows that homeopathy is more evidence-based than vaccines, right? But you don't need to delve too deep into scientific-sounding websites to make a decision about whether or not to vaccine your kids. You can just participate in one of the many discussions on fora for “natural parents”, have another mom tell you that you can cure polio with large doses of vitamin C, and call yourself “educated” about vaccines.