upvote
Given the amount of cultural influence the USA has and the universal nature of the internet it seems likely to me that global anti-vax sentiment could have started with the USA.
reply
The pivotal paper that tried to link vaccines to autism came out of the UK and was published in The Lancet.

Assuming that the US was the root of the current surge of anti-vax idealism is not supported by the facts.

reply
I don't think the general public were as influenced by a paper in the Lancet as they were by other members of the public (and media) talking about that study.
reply
The US is a global media and culture juggernaut, so by that token the US can be blamed for most trends. I don't think it's a worthwhile distinction.

Anti-vax culture was prominent in the UK, Australia, Canada, and many other countries at the same time. I'm not seeing any strong reason to blame the US as the root or solo cause.

reply
> The US is a global media and culture juggernaut, so by that token the US can be blamed for most trends.

Hmmm. By that logic, does it mean the US can also take credit for most trends?

reply
That paper was followed by a sustained and purposeful PR campaign, by the author, who had an investment in a new vaccine type that only covered one disease, as he was trying to cast doubt on vaccinating multiple things at the same time as "too stressful on the body" or other bullshit.

This also involved, whether he pushed it or it was organic, the tabloid press of the UK.

Eventually this filtered back to the US, despite already being largely debunked and retracted, but that didn't matter to the early 2000s celebrities looking for whatever confirmation bias sources they could.

The histeria started in the UK, slowly crept over the atlantic to the US, and now has filtered back, all while it was based on absolute fraud and lies, the exact criticism all these morons insist applies to real scientists.

The modern anti-vaccine movement was nearly entirely started by a doctor fraudulently publishing fake science to make money. The supporters of course refuse to see that, because it would burst their bubble, so only their enemies can possibly be guilty of it.

Even the 12 or so parents involved in that fraudulent "study" cried foul, as he literally put words in their mouths and made up testimony from them to support his scheme. Actual autistic children continue to suffer from his bullshit, entirely made up illness.

reply
And that guy ended up losing his medical license permanently over it.
reply
Yeah, I guess:

> Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 3 September 1956[a]) is an English fraudster and anti-vaccine activist. Formerly a senior surgeon, he was struck off the British medical register in 2010 for "serious professional misconduct" due to his involvement in the fraudulent 1998 Lancet MMR autism report, (wikpedia)

Sadly debunking fraud doesn't seem to stop the misinfo on social media. "Vaccines cause autism!" gets more clicks than the truth and so you get JFK Jr.

reply
It's Robert F. Kennedy Jr., not John.
reply
I wonder where that guy lives now
reply
The fraudulent Lancet paper gave "credibility" to the grifters and conspiracy theorists world wide.

But the King of Graft installing the halfwit RFK to run HHS is next level and I assume fellow grifters are making serious bank off this shit.

Reminder, the vengeful Orange also installed a climate change denier to run NOAA after he lost the election, who posted bogus claims on the official NOAA website which grifters used to give legitimacy to their bullshit.

reply
Yeah, but the facts don't support the narrative that's being pushed here, which is "America bad".
reply
The UK banned him from practicing because of it, citing "serious professional misconduct". He moved to the US.

America made one of his adherents the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

reply
Oh, banned him? Don't move too quickly, you might get dizzy.

Wakefield arguably assaulted his patients (most of whom were children, IIRC) when conducting his research. What do you do with people who arguably assaulted someone? You get the Crown to make that argument. Why didn't that happen?

Also worth noting: according to the logic upon which the British system of government is based, no lesser a party than God Himself put a major believer in homeopathy on the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

reply
https://x.com/raffysoanti/status/1403093629086965760

I'd love to see Wakefield go to jail for fraud, nor am I a fan of Charles even if he's on my passport. But Charles doesn't set UK health policy, or UK policy at all.

reply
> I'd love to see Wakefield go to jail for fraud, nor am I a fan of Charles even if he's on my passport. But Charles doesn't set UK health policy, or UK policy at all.

You're correct. He lives off the civil list and lets his nonce brother crash at a luxury home. But someone else does set UK health policy, and someone else does prosecute crimes, and since that's the case, then why didn't someone else in the UK with the ability to charge him do so?

If that happens, there is no adherent in charge of the DHHS. There are no kids dying of easily-preventable diseases in the UK, US, or anywhere else. Just a quack sitting in a jail cell.

reply
Again: I'm all for it. I've little ability to impact the British criminal justice system, though, nor much patience for whataboutism.

I'll still take "no longer a doctor" over "gets to set American health policy".

I like pancakes and waffles, in other words.

reply
> I've little ability to impact the British criminal justice system, though

Probably more on a per-capita basis than Americans have impact on what DHHS does, though. Especially if it became something focused on by the British public. Which, strangely, it hasn't. Not since 2010 when he was struck off.

> I'll still take "no longer a doctor" over "gets to set American health policy".

You really should aim higher. The man performed colonoscopies and biopsies on autistic children to support a scientific fraud with the hopes of becoming wealthy off of it. In other words, at the very least, he committed battery on disabled kids. That should earn more than getting struck off after twelve years. It should earn prison. It's purely on the British government that it hasn't. And since doing that would have prevented his scientific fraud from reaching the heights it is at now, modern antivax can be pinned on the UK and the lack of action from His Majesty's government.

reply
In fact, you can bet that other states deliberately stirred the pot
reply
There is some evidence that anti-vac activism was one of the key topics pushed by foreign influence campaigns at several points. I think the simple explanation is that they pushed any topic which could be used for political divisiveness and unrest, but fomenting anti-vac sentiment is especially damaging due to the physical harms it causes.
reply
Looks like Russia did that: https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/anti-pfizer-vaccine-narr...

... and the USA did it too, trying to discredit China’s Sinovac: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...

reply
Looking at global population stats, you can clearly see where germ theory and vaccines entered human civilization.

All this "natural something" and antivax movement certainly is the other direction. Maybe it's subconscious population control, maybe informational warfare... maybe people just got a little detached from reality by not dying all the time, as you suggested.

reply
deleted
reply
Anti-vaxxing goes back literally centuries, but the internet definitely made it a THING.
reply
I just looked it up and anti-vax arguments predate actual vaccines - they were used for variolation which was similar:

>in a 1722 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation"

Vaccines date from about 1800.

reply
I would blame the "social" media, on the old internet they had barely any visibility.

Now that we have the blame let's talk about the punishment.

reply
> I would blame the "social" media, on the old internet they had barely any visibility.

They managed to get plenty of visibility long before computers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991

> There followed a 100-year battle between the authorities and an often sceptical, sometimes aggressive, public. In Britain, a succession of laws made vaccinations free, then compulsory - backed by fines and even imprisonment. While riots flared in some towns, there was also more restrained opposition in the form of anti-vaccination leagues. For an increasingly literate population, pamphlets were produced with titles like "Vaccination: its fallacies and evils", "Vaccination, a Curse" and the suitably Gothic "Horrors of Vaccination".

reply
I do not disagree, but I don't remember antivax to be visible in pre-facebook internet either, so I only blame it for ~current wave
reply
It was there, and growing for decades. Pre Facebook it was a small niche but don't blame Facebook, that is mostly coincidence
reply
Pre-facebook, the barrier of entry was high enough that only fairly educated, students, and the nerds were driving the content.

Once the barrier came down and the floodgates of "average intelligence" were opened, it was over.

reply
deleted
reply
I am very prepared to get downvoted for bringing this up - but I'm not convinced that the "anti-vax movement" most people think of is truly to blame (that is, crazy people who think it gives you autism or whatever).

At least in my area, there are pockets of (relatively) new immigrants that have MMR vaccination rates at around 30% (that's very low, much lower than the anti-vaxxer population could account for imo), and the reasons for that have nothing to do with MAGA/MAHA as far as I can tell.

It's an entirely different problem (that needs solving), and pretending that this is simply the by-product of uneducated crazies on the internet feels like it's over indexing on a loud and flashy but ultimately small part of the problem.

reply
Before MAGA I'd heard of granola moms, the same people who think that amber helps their kid with teething, were very against vaccinating their kids as well. So it's a wide swath of people who are just oblivious to the benefits of vaccination. It's a reason that they have vaccine schedules to begin with.
reply
the data is quite slow to be released so i haven't updated my charts for a bit but britain saw a decent spike in HIV / AIDS because of the migratory flows under boris johnson. In large part because we don't test on the basis that it's considered racist (I went looking for discourse on testing on entry or not - first article that came up was from the graun, first words "Nigel Farage").
reply
Would you say that the government telling those people that they should be afraid of vaccines will help or hurt in this case?
reply
I gotta be honest, I don't really think these immigrant groups see or care what Trump/RFK are saying. If anything they see them as an "enemy" who they should not trust.. This is an incredibly left-leaning city where the majority of public health information (or any other messaging) being disseminated is counter to what the current federal admin is saying (as a rule, it seems).

So to answer your question, I don't personally think it helps or hurts in any significant amount relative to other cultural drivers.

reply
I don't think people base their beliefs purely based on what the administration says

the whole rollout and lockdowns, Fauci, etc. were a perfect storm to cause skepticism towards vaccines

reply
I don't think it was the roll-out or anything along those lines, so much as the lying. Saying people won't get sick or won't catch COVID if they get the vaccines [1] was just false and very myopic. Obviously the intent was to try to get people to take the shots, but they completely destroyed trust in the process. Broader skepticism predictably follows from there.

[1] - https://xcancel.com/ITGuy1959/status/1581034815700488192

reply
They are not the progenitors of the skepticism, but they gave the skeptics significantly more authority than they previously had. Over surveillance networks, vaccine scheduling, public health comms, etc. MAGA sees them as useful idiots for the coalition, rather than threats to the US.
reply
[flagged]
reply
interesting. so if you get a bacterial infection, you plan to succumb to it rather than take antibiotics?
reply
I'm not that extremist. My dentist is cool, my childrens' pediatrician as well. I trust them entirely and I know they would never compromise their credibility or my health for financial gain. I always take medicine they prescribe (mostly generic stuff whose patents expired a century or so ago). They always steer me to healthy habits such as excercise and eating fruits instead of taking supplements etc.

Unfortunately, they are the only ones like that I know. Most other I encountered just peddle products for their financial gain. Snake oil salesmen.

I am aware I live in a dictatorship which drove a lot of smart and good people away from the country, skilled doctors and nurses were among the first to go. Hopefully it'll get better once we overthrow the dictator.

reply
do you live in China?
reply
I'm afraid to say my last few experiences with antibiotics have been dismal. I got given three different types of antibiotics for one infection, none of which cleared it up much at all. Last time I appeared to have successful antibiotic treatment for something was in the 2010s.
reply
When did that particular switch flip?
reply
Here [1] is a montage of some of the public messaging around the COVID vaccines. [1] It was quite simply dishonest. That, paired alongside the effort to force people to take the shots, completely destroyed public trust on a level that will take many decades to repair. Generalized vaccine skepticism follows naturally from that.

I'm certainly a part of that group. For instance I ended up doing extensive research on e.g. MMR before deciding to vaccinate my kids for it. If this were a decade ago, I almost certainly would have done it without a second thought, just as I took all recommended vaccines before traveling without a second thought. So I'm obviously not anti-vaccine in the least, but I no longer trust public messaging on the topic.

It was just another (of the increasingly endless) examples of governments/companies pursuing short-term interests while ignoring long-term consequences. When it comes to what people put in their bodies, trust is more important than literally anything else.

[1] - https://xcancel.com/ITGuy1959/status/1581034815700488192

reply
Why is it bad for a public health communicator to say that vaccines stop spread by lowering the effective reproduction number of a pathogen? Its correct. Your extensive research didn't seem to work.
reply
But this has been building for years ahead of COVID. COVID just gave people something to latch on to. And in spite of COVID vaccine issues, the latest numbers i saw suggest around 80% of people still support standard childhood vaccinations.
reply
The media has been referencing this for years now, but the data don't show that there was any meaningful effect on a national level. Here [1] are CDC data on various childhood vaccines. Childhood DTP/MMR vaccination rates varied very little over the past 15 years and never fell below 94%. They actually hit a record high in 2019 right before COVID - of about 95% each. Now they're both at record lows (around 92%) and continuing to trend lower.

[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/schoolvaxview/data/index.html

reply
You have your chain of logic backwards. You wanted to be skeptical and "concerned" and so forth so you went out and found reasons to justify it.
reply