As august sees the start of National Immunisation Awareness Month, we take a look at how the media could be fuelling the anti-vaccination movement.
Vaccinations have been at the forefront of the fight against infectious diseases since they were first developed by Edward Jenner in 1796. However, as the start of August marks the beginning of National Immunisation Awareness Month (NIAM), public attitudes towards vaccinations are hesitant, and concerns about their value and safety seem to be increasing.2
A Brief History of Vaccines
Ever since the development of the first vaccination, which involved injecting patients with a strain of cowpox to immunise against smallpox, vaccination-scepticism has been rife. In 1853, when an act of parliament decreed that receiving the smallpox vaccination was to be made compulsory, extreme backlash occurred;3 which even resulted in the formation of the Anti-Vaccination League of London – a group which pressured parliament to eventually drop penalties on those who did not abide by vaccination laws.4
However, by 1980, the World Health Organisation (WHO) had declared smallpox eradicated,5 fulfilling the prediction made by its creator in 1801, Edward Jenner, that the most feared disease in existence would be eliminated by immunisation. And although the eradication of smallpox, and the near-eradication of polio,6 have shown the potential success of immunisation, there has been a fresh surge in the opposition to vaccines.
Recently, vaccination opposition has become most prevalent during the MMR controversy; which occurred during the late 1990’s, after the now discredited doctor, Andrew Wakefield,7 published his now infamous report in the Lancet. The report suggested that there was a credible claim of a connection between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine with the development of autism in children.4 However, numerous studies later disproved this association, and Wakefield was heavily criticised for his “flawed and unethical research methods.”4 It was also found that Wakefield had received funding through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers, which resulted in the Lancet retracting Wakefield’s study, declaring it “Utterly False” and Wakefield himself being struck from the UK Medical Registry.4
Since Wakefield’s report, the rate of MMR vaccination dropped from 92% in 1996, to 84% in 2002, and even to 61% in some parts of London in 2003; resulting in the cases of measles soaring from 56 in 1998, to 449 in the first five months of 2006, and measles being declared endemic to the UK in 2008.4
But Wakefield was proved “utterly false.” So why have anti-vaccination opinions persisted?
Video Killed the Vaccine Star
Although the answer is one of complexity and convolution, one reason for the rise of anti-vaccination opinions could lie in how the “debate” was, and is continued, to be presented in the media.
It has long been argued by social scientists that the convention of balanced reporting could result in biased coverage when not all sides are equal; forming the appearance of a conflict, when there is not one.9
Research has suggested that during the MMR debate, British journalists reported the issue in a “relatively ‘balanced’ fashion”10 with 48% of the 1257 UK news articles published on the subject in 2002 alone, bestowing a balanced argument for and against the use of the MMR vaccines.9
However, studies have shown that the falsely balanced reporting of the supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism “heightens readers’ uncertainty regarding vaccine safety and lowers their intention to vaccinate their future children.” It also found that falsely-balanced articles provoke a stronger perception that experts are divided; creating the perception of a debate where one doesn’t exist, and casting doubt on the integrity of the scientific consensus. Or put more simply: although 99% of evidence suggests one thing, by presenting the 1% of opposition in the same balanced manner as the 99%, a false perception of the scientific consensus is created. By creating this doubt, people consequently tend to choose the side of the argument that requires them to take no action, i.e to not vaccinate - rather than the one that apparently “risks causing harm.”
Conclusion
Balance when reporting the safety of vaccines does not always result in objective reporting: when the overwhelming amount of evidence is in favour of their safety, over-balancing the views of vaccine-sceptics creates the image that the scientific community is split, even when it isn’t; causing misperception and hesitation. In order to raise the public profile of immunisation and vaccines, weighted reporting must be implemented, allowing people to assess which perspective is supported by the greater amount of scientific evidence,11 which would help prevent breakouts of entirely preventable diseases.
By Daniel Waggon
