CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,094Misinformation and Its ImpactsVaccine Coverage and HesitancyHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm - An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement

Kata, Anna·2012·Vaccine
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Websites opposing vaccination are prevalent on the Internet. Web 2.0, defined by interaction and user-generated content, has become ubiquitous. Furthermore, a new postmodern paradigm of healthcare has emerged, where power has shifted from doctors to patients, the legitimacy of science is questioned, and expertise is redefined. Together this has created an environment where anti-vaccine activists are able to effectively spread their messages. Evidence shows that individuals turn to the Internet for vaccination advice, and suggests such sources can impact vaccination decisions - therefore it is likely that anti-vaccine websites can influence whether people vaccinate themselves or their children. This overview examines the types of rhetoric individuals may encounter online in order to better understand why the anti-vaccination movement can be convincing, despite lacking scientific support for their claims. Tactics and tropes commonly used to argue against vaccination are described. This includes actions such as skewing science, shifting hypotheses, censoring dissent, and attacking critics; also discussed are frequently made claims such as not being "anti-vaccine" but "pro-safe vaccines", that vaccines are toxic or unnatural, and more. Recognizing disingenuous claims made by the anti-vaccination movement is essential in order to critically evaluate the information and misinformation encountered online.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 83 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999, Achievements in public health, 1900–1999 impact of vaccines universally recommended for children – United States, 1990–1998, Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 48, 243
  2. Friedlander, 2001, Opposition to immunization: a pattern of deception, Sci Rev Altern Med, 5, 18
  3. Betsch, 2009, Langfristige Auswirkungen einer Informationssuche auf impfkritischen Internetseiten, Prävention, 32, 125
  4. Loe Fisher B. In the wake of vaccines. Mothering 2004; vol. 126 (September–October). http://www.trinitychiro.com/media/Mothering_Vaccine_Article.pdf. [Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5ydNaolTD].
  5. Sears RW. Is aluminum the new thimerosal? Mothering 2008; vol. 146 (January–February). http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sears.html. [Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5ydMwOrop].
  6. Age of Autism. Columbia University Press and Dr. Paul Offit Sued for Autism's False Prophets, http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/columbia-university-press-and-dr-paul-offit-sued-for-autisms-false-prophets.html; 2009 [accessed 20.04.11]. [Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5y5ucrMvQ].
  7. Wimer B, Emm JL, Bader D. Chickenpox party: developing natural varicella immunity. Mothering 2004; vol. 122 (January–February). http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wimer.html. [Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5ydfISM5W].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kata, A.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Kata, Anna
ORCID
Kata, Anna
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-05
Volume
30
Issue
25
Pages
3778-3789
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
OpenAlex
W2062321610
Cited by
1,094
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 111 · 2022: 124 · 2021: 151 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 9
FWCI
56.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
anti-vaccine movement, anti-vaccine activism, Web 2.0, misinformation, vaccine hesitancy, user-generated content, science communication, online health information
MeSH terms
Communication, Decision Making, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Vaccination, Vaccines, Health Communication, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review