Whilst in my local library a brand new shiny red book caught my eye. Anti-vaxxers by Jonathan M Berman. According to the blurb on the back of the book, the anti-vaxxer movement has been called one of the top ten threats to global health by the WHO.
In short this book has some interesting historical content and I agree on many points although from a different perspective. Still we must call it what it is - political propaganda.
The book Anti-vaxxers was mostly written in 2018 and 2019. It must have been a dream come true that there just happened to be a raging Covid pandemic (the authors words) to sell his book. Either that or he moved in the circles that was prepping for this plandemic (indeed some circles have been prepping for what they saw as an inevitability for decades). In his preface he claims that anti-vaccine activists won’t be relevant to the current crisis until a vaccine is developed.
Immediately a few queries come to mind just in the preface. He relies on evidence that large percentages of people are asymptomatic and spread Covid-19 without even realising it. Plus he states it is more transmissible and infectious than flu by two times. Which of course threatens to over run hospitals. He refers to a partisan political response that has complicated the response in the US leading to politicians who won’t listen to the experts, won’t shut down their entire economies to stop the (his modelling) 4 million people who will die. A lot of assumptions which I don’t think have been borne out.
The book is in part history of the anti-vaccination movement. The author in his introduction sets out his belief that vaccines have significantly reduced the burden of human suffering. The historic anti-vaccination movement, you see, has lessons to teach us about countering these obviously crazy people of today who are anti-vaxxers. He lays at the door of the anti-vaccination movement;
real harm over time, including deaths from outbreaks of smallpox, measles, and polio; bankruptcy of vaccine manufacturers leading to shortages…
Despite this the author notes that overall vaccination rates are high. His concern is with small enclaves where apparently anti-vaccine rhetoric has been effective. The use of the word rhetoric is extremely disparaging. It sets the tone for the whole book. Apparently when anti-vaccine activists cite scientific articles they are simply justifying beliefs based on a non-evidence basis.
Pinterest
The most effective way to counter these anti-vaxxers, according to this book, are community-based strategies. In other words peer pressure. The author states there is no single organized anti-vaccine movement (pre-2020 at least), instead there are many individuals who have been influenced by a specific set of beliefs. The author writes;
An important part of understanding those beliefs is understanding if they are true.
This book makes some pretty big calls in relation to the pandemic – I wonder if they are true?
For example, he writes that vaccines operate by placing in the body immune generating structures that are not capable of causing disease on their own. However, standing here now in late 2022 we can say for sure that for some people these vaccinations have caused disease on their own.
He writes that when enough of the population is protected from the disease the incidence of the disease drops. Again what we now know in late 2022 is that the efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccination declines sharply. After three months any protection is lost. Indeed, the narrative has changed from one of protection against the disease to an unsupportable claim that it makes you significantly less ill.
The book touts the success of the small pox vaccine. One we all get told at school. Add to this the success of the polio vaccine and the role of the WHO and it feels like case closed on those silly anti-vaxxers. They even have the same arguments.
He speaks of the early opposition to the smallpox vaccine. On one side it was rejected firstly officially, as being too fantastical. Jenner’s work was viewed as blurring the line between human and beast and between social classes. It’s a funny accusation because part of the information war against treatment of Covid-19, utilising Ivermectin has been criticised for being “horse paste”. We humans wary of taking a medicine that also works on animals (because we aren’t animals ourselves?)
ebay.com
Early opposition to vaccinations was intimately tied to issues of social class, individual liberties, individual and collective rights, and changing ideas about health and medicine. In fact organised opposition to the practice of vaccination only became evident after the British government began mandating it.
One of my main issues with this book (and other propaganda like it), is that it puts anti-vaxxers in a box. Yet here we have it, it was the mandates that got people irate. The Vaccination Act of 1853 required mandatory vaccination for all infants over four months old. As well as civil liberties concerns, there were also religious ones. Those believing in the power of vaccination “and in the right of the state to impose vaccination” found themselves in a war of both information and culture.
So far, so comparable. However, the chapter continues that for many “health” did not include scientific experimentation or analysis. The Covid-19 shot has largely been understood by many people as “experimental” and this type of propaganda plays into the argument that “anti-vaxxers” are unscientific. Just because concerns have been raised over carrying out such an enormous, practically untested, experimental vaccination programme on an entire population, does not make one unscientific.
During the nineteenth century the state saw fit to interfere medically with the population. The Anatomy Act of 1832 expanded the availability of corpses to be utilised for dissection and the Contagious Diseases Act required the examination of prostitutes to look for venereal disease, were both seen as state over reach into the lives of individuals. These led to a poor v rich mentality where state power was concerned. At the time these Acts were criticised publicly by John Gibbs arguing against mandatory vaccination.
Another accusation levelled by Gibbs was that the Vaccination Act was written to benefit the medical trade. Never! That it treated the populace as stupid. Never! He also raised legitimate questions such as does vaccination lower vital resistance? Of course the writer concludes Gibbs was just a quack. It’s hilarious to read after the suppression of science and especially Ivermectin that;
Science-based medicine exerts a monopoly on the treatment of disease, and at its periphery “alternative” practitioners market non-evidence based approaches to health care.
Dos that involve taking vitamins and minerals? What about wearing masks and social distancing?
The author also talks about stats. How they can be deployed badly, or in bad faith. Anyone else thinking about those models predicting millions dead being used to justify draconian lockdown policies. As he says they can be used to confuse, befuddle and bully into belief those without. Cherry picking data and confusing correlation with causation. That is exactly what I accuse the vaxxer movement of having and continuing to do.
They are setting up an opposition movement to hide that it is they who are in a movement. The vaxxers!
The book even goes so far as to quote Gandhi about blood getting impure. Is this to show that even highly regarded leaders can be wrong about medicine and health. Gandhi actually said;
Vaccination is a barbarous practice... Its supporters are not content with its adoption by those who have no objection to it, but seek to impose it with the aid of penal laws and rigorous punishment…
Polio was raging in Europe in the early 20th century. In the 1930s two teams were working to develop vaccines “with disastrous results”. Between the two vaccines, six children died and ten were paralyzed.
There were years and years of vaccine development before a safe vaccine was created and widely adopted. Even then an improperly inactivated batch resulted in 11 deaths and 250 cases of paralytic polio. These shook the public’s trust in the vaccine.
On that basis this current Covid-19 vaccine is an unmitigated disaster. Just on officially recorded numbers deaths are in the thousands, and we as a society are actively avoiding this reality. The fear of a public outcry explains why the Covid-19 vaccination deaths are being hidden. Goodness knows we don’t want people to lose trust in our brand new vaccine.
Image from Washington Post review of this book
The chapter then goes on to describe how modern practices mean people are informed about the vaccinations and the formation of various bodies to protect people. Such as the VAERS reporting system. Whilst anti-vaxxers will claim it seriously underestimates reactions, the vaxxers claim the opposite citing this has been exploited by lawyers seeking injuries compensation.
And whilst these bodies are responsible for providing a role in safety it is recognised that due to time-limits health-care providers may not have the opportunity to provide every patient with a Vaccine Information Statement. I think for this vax it would need to be about 18 pages long of counter reactions.
There’s a very brief chapter on autism, although the book expands in other chapters, so this is like an introduction just to this topic. Basically, there’s no link between vaccination and autism. No alternative is offered, just it’s a complex genetic characteristic. I have worked with children with autism. Nearly all of the parents have told me that their child was different following the MMR jab. However, in our world personal experience is put second to “science”. But what if that science is corrupted?
The trigger for the modern anti-vax movement was the publication in 1998 of an article in the Lancet by Andrew Wakefield. He stated that the MMR vaccine was responsible for autism. This was later proved to be scientific fraud. Scientific fraud in the Lancet? Never!
Both journalists and scientists search for the truth.
Well, I think I can detect here the writers biggest mistake. Since 2020 pandemic it has become blindingly obvious that neither journalists nor scientists have been motivated by seeking the truth. That is unless you mean those working within the “anti-vaxxer” community? He writes about journalists working to avoid the appearance of working for a “special interest”. The use of the word appearance is telling. Appearance is all, but in reality they serve a special interest.
He really talks up science. Part of the “Trust the Science” propaganda which has been particularly effective with those with (say degree level) understanding of science.
Science develops new and life saving technologies, new weapons and new tools…
Or life threatening technologies - bio weapons anyone?
I agree with him when he writes that scientific research often rewards patience and getting things right.
A single scientific publication might represent several years’ worth of work and may take several rounds of peer review, new experiments and revision before it’s accepted into a reputable journal.
Presumably this includes the Lancet where Wakefield published his now discredited research on autism. Or Nature magazine which published the virus originated in nature story. If the author truly believes his words he should be similarly shocked by the shockingly bad science that has graced these reputable journals during the pandemic and trashing them in the eyes of many.
I also agree with him with his view that news media tend to emphasise negative stories. Covid-19 was one humongous negative news story day after day. Yet, they are not covering the excess mortality in the same way at all. So there is choice here.
Humans are also apt to see studies that find health risks as more trustworthy than those that show low or no risk
The plandemic was prepared with the media beforehand to maximise the health fear to the public. Although I did not subscribe to the “it’s just the flu bro” narrative (especially when it’s what the Sun was saying) at the beginning of the pandemic, in hindsight it looks very much like the flu. Based on the evidence I changed my mind.
He writes further about journalistic “virtues”. In short his ideas of journalism and scientists is just pure fantasy or naivety, but how would I know. Or does the author know he is spinning a story.
In 2009 an article was published entitled “Denialism: What Is It, and How Should Scientist Respond?” Apparently, science denial is constituted by five features. 1) Relying on conspiracy theories. 2) Using fake experts ie those who go against perceived wisdom. 3) Cherry picking data. 4) Demanding science deliver impossible results. 5) Using faulty logic.
So it is obviously a conspiracy theory to suggest that Bill Gates with his untold millions and deep investment in health has no influence. That the CDC is not thoroughly corrupted. That the WHO is not also deeply corrupted. Fell at hurdle one – so I’m a science denier. Burn me at the stake why don’t you?
The viewpoint is that the new social media’s have supplanted traditional media as the primary means of disseminating anti-vaccine misinformation, absent centralised gatekeepers. (Well we’ll just have to get the new media to censor them then). It’s true fake news has been an accusation levelled by both sides. I feel his definition leaves a lot to be desired;
Fake-news stories are those that have the appearance of being real-news stories but do not have the editorial supervision of traditional news sources and do not adhere to journalistic norms for verifying information before disseminating it.
Again I can only think this guy lives in a fantasy land of childish conceptions about the role of journalism, or spinning that story.
I mean if we have knowledge now in 2022 that the vaccination is not safe nor effective. To say otherwise is misinformation, no? What about the story that gun shot victims were denied hospital assistance because they were full of people who had overdosed on the Ivermectin paste designed for horses. A complete fake down to the pictures.
The key question is who decides what is fake news? The book suggests it must be a centralised authority – because only authorised scientists and journalists can be trusted. This does not take into account the crime syndicate running the show. (Oops another conspiracy theory I guess).
He really has it in for the new social media sources quoting numerous figures to support a contention that ordinary people were being bamboozled by fake science and conspiracies. Obviously this needs to be controlled.
In many ways science has not caught up to social media in its ability to disseminate information.
Again I agree with the author when he writes that:
we publish within the walled garden of scientific research...that are picked up by the popular press...aren’t represented in a way that is accurate.
I’ve certainly seen journalist stories on science papers that have reported the exact opposite of what the scientific paper found. However, I think we disagree when it comes to addressing misinformation when it’s encountered. He makes an interesting point that;
the benefits of becoming an in-depth expert in scientific and political topics is low, and human beings tend to be parsimonious with effort. To make up for this, we use heuristics, or rule of thumb...information does matter – as the less information a person has...the more likely they are to rely on heuristics.
So, is that arguing that the less information is out there the better? As he says frequent exposure through media can cultivate beliefs. It works both ways.
Chapter 15 focuses on the escalation of commitment. He actually conflates sending memes – to sending death threats to doctors and spilling menstrual blood on Senators.
How do people become committed...and rarely step back when confronted by a mistake.
I know in 2019 he means the anti-vaxxers. But here now in 2022 I see this as a description of the vaxxers. Despite being faced with the abject failure of their vaccination programme they are still adherents. One answer is that people tend to double down on investments they view as moral imperatives. (Virtue signalling anyone?) Another is that we value self-consistency and will pursue behaviour even if its not entirely rational.
Furthermore there is our commitment to belonging to the group and our susceptibility for peer pressure. Belonging to the group can make us more committed to the decisions of those groups, and make us take up more polarised positions. He expresses the concern that being surrounded by anti-vaxxers will expose others to these ideas and thus develop a mental model of vaccination. Again, I think this applies to both groups.
Chapter sixteen addresses religious concerns. These he claims are nothing more than a smokescreen that allows anti-vaxxers to bypass normal vaccination requirements. Unsurprisingly, the author finds;
The benefits of public health measures such as vaccination are strong...In the rare case that religious beliefs do conflict with vaccination, the state’s interests, may outweigh religious privilege. [Note the use of privilege not right ed].
Next he takes on the charge that big pharma are corrupt. He recognises people’s distrust of pharma yet he states a negative attitude to big pharma is driven by conspiracy theories.
Although it’s tempting to dismiss such conspiracies outright because conspiracy theorists tend to be wrong about everything...it is worthwhile to address why people believe in conspiracy theories, even after the evidence becomes overwhelming…
What a sweeping statement that is and a clear indicator of the authors bias. Conspiracy theorists apparently have an over abundance of FAB – fundamental attribution bias. So is it the fundamental nature of big pharma to expand their markets and seek returns on investment for their share holders that led to a decision to roll out a bad product rather than an individual just making a mistake.
Another explanation is that lacking control in their own lives they make things up, essentially so that they have a coherent framework. They are likely to attribute intent where none exists. He refers to Karl Popper and his idea that believing in conspiracy theories is like a religion where outcomes are attributed to sinister and powerful groups and individuals. Popper makes the point that human plans rarely go to plan.
Yes, indeed the plandemic didn’t quite go to plan either I’d say.
In the Paranoid Style in American Politics Richard Hofstader suggests such people don’t search for truth but evidence to protect themselves from it. I wonder if such a process is at work with the vaxxers?
The author writes that is is known that drugs have side effects, some deadly. In his fantasy world (or pre-2020 world) science examines the evidence and weighs the effects against the disease. That this did not happen with this vaccine should ring alarm bells for everyone. The rushed vaccine represented a desire for the big pharma companies to rush an untested product to market – all under the cover of emergency authorisation.
Yet again this naivety shows when he writes;
The perverse incentives created by the profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry are overridden by sound science and adequate regulation.
He has to be kidding? The regulatory organisations have been completely captured by big business and their revolving door.
The book draws the distinction between the educational background of these anti-vaxxers and those under-vaccinated due to low social status. The argument for vaccination is quite clear;
By its nature vaccination requires the participation of the majority to protect the minority...for those without access to medical care.
The book then moves onto discuss modern parenting and vaccinations. Straight-away he dismisses the anti-vax "crunchy” parent;
And how has their thinking gone astray?
Bad information seems to be the answer. Too much bad information. What can change this? Well one positive example is someone sharing their positive experience of vaccination. Health scares also make a mention. We've already mentioned peer pressure.
I’m not taking a position up on any pre-Covid 19 vaccination. However, by becoming anti this vax I have been exposed to what is considered "bad information". I have now listened to and read the work of Robert Kennedy Jnr and I am now more open to what he and others have to say critically about vaccines. I am an example of someone who has become more open to alternative ideas which are routinely dismissed in this book.
He concludes by praising the life saving properties of vaccines. To think otherwise is to have been twisted by misinformation distributed by amongst others, unscrupulous doctors. In his world Dr Fauci should be trusted as the authoritative voice, and those of Dr Pierre Kory and Dr Paul Marrick are just quacks. My world is the complete opposite. Fauci is a crook and Marrick and Kory are heroes.
This Covid-19 vaccination fraud has been legitamised on the basis of previous vaccinations and used "science" to blind people to the swindle that is occurring. To that end this book forms part of the vaxxers propaganda.
I’ll finish with the same note as does this book;
...the victory of truth over lies and misinformation is not a forgone conclusion. That it is up to each of us to actively work to ensure...that appealing lies never gain victory over hard-fought truths.
