Though we short-attention-spanned humans tend to take an interest only in the most recent science, older studies can be very instructive.
To that end, let’s go back eight years.
A study in the journal Vaccine
In 2016 a very revealing study was published in the journal Vaccine.
This study analyzed the language used in the comment section of a viral Facebook post.
The Facebook post in question was written by Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg.
The post featured a super sweet photograph of Zuckerberg holding his infant daughter on his lap.
Zuckerberg announced that they were at the doctor’s office and it was time for his daughter’s vaccines.
“Doctor’s visit—time for vaccines!”
The post garnered a huge amount of attention, getting nearly 40,000 shares, 3.5 million reactions, and 83,000 comments just after it was posted.
Language can provide insights into views about vaccines
A team of three researchers—one based in Australia and two from the Psychology Department at La Sierra University in Riverside, California—analyzed the language used in the comment section of Zuckerberg’s post. Their goal was to try to better understand how Facebook users express opinions about vaccines.
The researchers tackled the question from a decidedly pro-vaccine perspective:
“Vaccinations are important for controlling the spread of disease,” they write in their study, “yet an increasing number of people are distrustful of vaccines, and choose not to (fully) vaccinate themselves and their children.”
They continue: “One proposed contributor to this distrust is anti-vaccination misinformation available on the internet, where people search for and discuss health information.
“The language people use in these discussions can provide insights into views about vaccination,” they continue.
On the subject of the “language people use”
People concerned about vaccines are described as “anti-vax” by the mainstream media and the Big Pharmaceutical companies that fund the media.
In this 2016 study, in lockstep with the mainstream, the authors liberally use the terms “anti-vaccination” and “misinformation” to describe social media comments that included vaccine safety concerns.
I’ve been researching and writing about vaccine safety issues for over twenty years. As I mentioned in this Substack article, I’ve found that those expressing concerns about vaccines are usually either “ex-vaxxers” or vaccine safety advocates.
Ex-vaxxers are parents who followed the schedule for their children with devastating results. Like this mom, this mom, and this one.
Vaccine safety advocates are often parents who proactively do their research and chose to vaccinate judiciously or not at all.
They make their decisions on a vaccine-by-vaccine basis.
These decisions are guided by a risk-benefit analysis that includes their children’s unique genetics, chance of disease exposures, and chance of developing brain or immune dysfunction from overstimulation of the immune system and/or from the toxic ingredients in the vaccines.
[To access a list of ingredients in each vaccine, by brand, see the CDC’s pink book, which was last updated in November of 2021, as of this writing. To learn about which excipients are in which vaccines on an excipient by excipient basis, see Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety, which was last updated August 31, 2023 as of this writing.]
Vaccine safety advocates appeal to science
Writing in the journal Vaccine, the researchers who analyzed Mark Zuckerberg’s post declared that the “anti-vaccination stance is not scientifically based.”
Yet, paradoxically, they found that comments critical of vaccines “showed evidence of greater analytical thinking, and more references to health and the body.” [my emphasis.]
Vaccine propagandists appeal to emotions
On the other hand, comments in favor of vaccines, “demonstrated greater comparative anxiety, with a particular focus on family and social processes.”
In other words, vaccine critics argued against vaccines based on science, whereas vaccine proponents relied on emotional appeals.
Evidence of greater analytical thinking
The conclusion of the study is worth quoting in its entirety:
“Although the anti-vaccination stance is not scientifically-based, comments showed evidence of greater analytical thinking, and more references to health and the body. In contrast, pro-vaccination comments demonstrated greater comparative anxiety, with a particular focus on family and social processes. These results may be indicative of the relative salience of these issues and emotions in differing understandings of the benefits and risks of vaccination. Text-based analysis is a potentially useful and ecologically valid tool for assessing perceptions of health issues, and may provide unique information about particular concerns or arguments expressed on social media that could inform future interventions.”
Talking out both sides of your mouth
This study from 2016 offers a glimpse into the world of convoluted thinking on the part of the propagandists scientific researchers.
As with many scientific studies, it’s helpful to read past the headlines, look at the data the study presents, and draw your own conclusions.
This study insists that a variety of vaccine safety concerns expressed by users on Facebook are “not scientifically-based.” At the same time, the very same “not scientifically based” proponents show “evidence of greater analytical thinking.”
In contrast, those justifying the current vaccine program appeal to emotions. They employ tactics of bullying, vilifying, and censoring.
But the pro-vaccine stance is “scientific” and the anti-vaccine stance is “misinformed”?
M’okay.
Got it.
I’m convinced.
Sayonara. Gotta go chase after that squirrel.
Related posts:
Chickenpox Vaccine Linked to Shingles
So-Called Anti-Vaxxers Aren’t Delusional
Make These Two Lifestyle Changes and Never Take an Antibiotic Again
About the author: Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning science journalist and the author/co-author/editor of eight books. She has worked as a contributing editor at Mothering magazine, a contributing writer at The Epoch Times, and a feature writer and audio feature producer for Jefferson Public Radio. A Fulbright grantee and sought-after speaker, she takes no money from the pharmaceutical industry. Support independent fact-forward journalism and enjoy exclusive content by becoming a paid subscriber to Vibrant Life today. A subscription costs less than one cuppa Joe per month.
If my kids get sick from your unvaccinated kid…. This has got to be the dumbest most illogical reason for vaccinating EVER. If the vaccines work then my unvaccinated kid couldn’t make your vaccinated kid sick. And my kids can’t pass on diseases they don’t have. Think much?
I'm 82. I think the only vaccination I had as a child was for smallpox. The kids seemed healthier in those days. I find it hard to believe that any parent would subject their children to 70 some "vaccines" nowadays.