Dead Children or Autistic Children?

Rejecting Vaccine Skepticism & the Focus on Eliminating Difference

You’ve probably heard that life expectancy—now around 77.6 years in much of the United States and Europe—was dramatically lower in past centuries: only 36 years in the 18th century and 45 years at the start of the 20th century, during the lifetimes of many of our grandparents and great-grandparents. This remarkable increase, from 45 to nearly 80, is largely due to the development and widespread use of vaccines.

First, vaccines significantly reduced the number of children under 12 dying from diseases like whooping cough, polio, and mumps—illnesses that were once devastatingly common.

Second, vaccines prevented many survivors of these illnesses from suffering lifelong organ damage that could still shorten their lives, even after they recovered from the initial infection.

Third, by providing herd immunity, vaccines protected society’s most vulnerable members—especially young infants—from diseases that posed the greatest threat to their lives.

Despite this, vaccine misinformation continues to thrive. A long-debunked study from the late 1990s suggested a theoretical link between vaccines and autism. Although extensive research has repeatedly disproved this connection, such misinformation persists and spreads rapidly, particularly on social media platforms.

A 2021 story published by Boston College highlights the work of those studying this rise of disinformation, specifically around the subject of vaccine efficacy. Michelle A. Amazeen and Arunima Krishna conducted research using a fabricated Facebook post that shared an emotional story about a boy allegedly developing autism after receiving the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. To counter this false narrative, they tested three strategies: sharing a personal story of a successful vaccination without complications, presenting a conversion narrative from a former anti-vaccine advocate, and providing a factual chart detailing accurate adverse event statistics.

Their results showed that factual information alone had little impact on changing opinions, while personal stories proved to be more effective in persuading people. False personal stories like the one in their study play a significant role in the spread of fake news, as they tap into emotions and make misinformation feel relatable and credible. This emotional appeal often overrides logic and evidence, allowing false narratives to persist and gain traction, especially in environments like social media where information spreads rapidly and sources are not always scrutinized.

Even when false information is debunked, some still cling to it, skewing their behavior and decisions. For example, during the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in the fall of 2024, some people refused aid, convinced that the government was using the disaster as a cover to steal their land. This kind of belief, despite clear evidence to the contrary, demonstrates how misinformation can distort reality and fuel distrust, making it harder to address actual needs and problems.

This same dynamic plays out in the election denial that came after the 2020 presidential election in the United States. Even after the results of the elections were recounted, scrutinized, and then finally certified and validated, some groups continue to propagate unfounded claims of fraud, believing that the election was "stolen." These falsehoods are often based on emotionally charged narratives, not on facts, and they erode trust in democratic institutions. The persistence of election denial, much like vaccine misinformation, shows how deeply ingrained false beliefs can undermine public trust, obstruct social progress, and polarize communities.

We have all witnessed the phenomenon where, when confronted with facts about a situation, some people respond by saying that the facts matter less than their perceived opinion. This tendency to prioritize personal belief over objective reality is a powerful force in the spread of misinformation. It speaks to a deeper need for identity and control—people are often more invested in defending their worldview than in adjusting it to fit new evidence.

This phenomenon is not limited to vaccines or elections; it plays out across many issues, from climate change to public health. When facts are disregarded in favor of personal belief, it creates a barrier to progress, deepens divisions, and hinders meaningful dialogue. It also highlights the importance of not just presenting facts, but finding ways to engage with people’s emotions and identities, as those are often the driving forces behind their rejection of truth. The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous quote in a 1983 article for The Washington Post, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," demonstrates that this phenomenon is not new, but the rise of social media has amplified its destructive potential.

Confirmation bias plays a significant role in the spread of misinformation, especially on social media, where algorithms are designed to reinforce users’ existing beliefs. When individuals are exposed to content that aligns with their views, they are more likely to accept it as true, even if the information is inaccurate or misleading. This effect is particularly potent in the case of vaccine denial, where individuals who already harbor doubts about vaccines are more likely to engage with and share posts that support their fears.

Social media platforms create echo chambers where these beliefs are amplified, as people are repeatedly exposed to the same biased narratives. This not only strengthens the misinformation but also isolates individuals from counteracting viewpoints - because blocking those countering views is literally as easy as checking a box. Social media allows us all to choose to stick our fingers in our ears and chant la-la-la loudly at those with whom we disagree.  As a result, confirmation bias on social media deepens polarization, making it more challenging to correct false information and engage in productive conversations. The constant reinforcement of false narratives erodes public trust in science, undermines efforts to promote health, and can have dangerous consequences for public health and safety.

Amazeen notes: “Repetition breeds familiarity. You see this here, you see this there, and all of a sudden, ‘Yeah, I’ve seen that somewhere before, so it must be true.’” Amazeen and Krishna emphasize that while individuals should scrutinize sources of information, social media companies must also take a harder line against the fast spread of untruths—even at the expense of their bottom line.

This misinformation has real-world consequences. Consider this: Polio alone killed half a million people in the early 1940s and in the decades before and after. In cities like New York, 80% of those deaths were children under five years old. And yet, vaccine denialists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. encourage people to reject science and risk deadly outbreaks because they choose to center the narrative that a child with autism is the worst outcome.

Even if someone believes in this so-far theoretical link between vaccines and autism, it raises a critical moral question: Why would anyone choose the risk of a dead child over a living, thriving autistic child? Many autistic individuals lead fulfilling and productive lives. The willingness to risk death just to avoid difference reveals something deeply troubling about human nature.

Throughout history, humans have repeatedly rejected those who are perceived as different—whether through race, ethnicity, religion, ability, gender, sexual orientation - or their perceived mental health or ability. This rejection is often driven by fear, ignorance, or the desire to uphold a narrow definition of “normal.” It was still common into the age of the Industrial Revolution to allow children with severe developmental disabilities to die, or if not, to be placed in lifelong institutions that treated them like animals. Vaccine denial manifests as that same fear of children being neurologically or developmentally atypical.

This fear of difference isn’t new. It’s the same impulse that has justified segregation, eugenics, forced sterilizations, reservations, and even genocide through holocaust events including the one perpetrated by the Nazi's. It’s the same impulse that makes parents disown LGBTQ+ children, send them to conversion therapy camps, or worse, consider their deaths preferable to their lives. This is a toxic ideology, rooted in a belief that human value is determined by conformity to arbitrary norms.

Rejecting difference denies us the opportunity to see the beauty and strength in diversity. Some of the most remarkable individuals throughout history—scientists, artists, activists—were people who thought, acted, or lived differently. Our refusal to embrace difference doesn’t just harm individuals; it impoverishes our entire society.

The development of vaccines has saved millions of lives, and it is important to note these false narratives that drive many with the privilege of having vaccine access to reject them.

But it’s also essential to acknowledge the history of vaccine creation is marred by unethical testing practices in medical experimentation in the development of all new drug protocols. During the 20th century, medical experimentation often exploited vulnerable populations, including prisoners, institutionalized individuals, and Black and Indigenous communities.

For example, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study infamously withheld treatment from Black men to observe the progression of disease. In Canada, during the 1940s and 1950s, Indigenous children in residential schools were subjected to nutritional experiments, where they were deliberately denied adequate food to study the effects of malnutrition. Some were also given experimental vaccines without parental knowledge or consent. Similarly, in the 1950s, the first large-scale human trials of birth control pills were conducted on Puerto Rican women, many of whom were not fully informed of the risks or the experimental nature of the drug. This legacy of exploitation fuels mistrust in medical systems among marginalized groups to this day. Recognizing this history is critical in fostering equitable public health approaches while ensuring such abuses are never repeated.

But for most who are denying vaccines, the rejection of the vaccines and the broader rejection of difference stem from the same flawed ideology: a fear of the unknown and a desire to enforce conformity. Yet history shows that humanity’s greatest strengths lie in our diversity and our capacity for innovation, collaboration, and compassion. Vaccines are a testament to these strengths, representing a collective effort to protect not just ourselves but each other.

This rejection of difference robs society of the incredible contributions made by individuals who think, perceive, and live differently. Alan Turing, widely considered the father of modern computing, was on the autism spectrum. His groundbreaking work in mathematics and cryptography during World War II helped the Allies defeat Nazi Germany, saving countless lives and fundamentally transforming the modern world, but he was rejected as different because he was gay. Albert Einstein, one of the most brilliant minds in human history, was once dismissed as "slow" and "unfit for academic success" by teachers and peers. As a child, he struggled with verbal communication and was perceived as lacking the intellectual potential to excel in traditional schooling.

Society often underestimates or dismisses individuals who don't fit conventional molds, especially those whose differences don't align with the standardized expectations of intelligence or ability. These examples remind us that diversity in thought and experience drives progress and enriches humanity.

As we move forward, we must reject fear-based ideologies and embrace a more inclusive vision of humanity—one that values all lives, regardless of ability, identity, or perceived difference. Vaccines are not just a triumph of science; they are a symbol of our interconnectedness and our responsibilities to one another. Let us honor that by fighting misinformation, acknowledging past wrongs, and building a more just and equitable future for all humans.

Audre Lorde reminds us, "It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences." We must reject any positioning that centers human homogeneity over the brilliant vision that comes when we lift up human diversity.

https://www.bu.edu/com/articles/how-to-fight-vaccine-misinformation/ If you want to learn more, read this fascinating take on how Aaron Rodgers got caught up in created false information: https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/aaron-rodgers-misinformation-football-nfl-elon-musk-rcna180376

kfr, 17 November 2024