Nerve game: Why do anti-vaccineers and HIV dissidents believe
Text: Olga Lukinskaya
A few days ago we learnedthat Russia at Eurovision will be represented by Julia Samoilova, a singer with the first group of disability due to spinal muscular atrophy. Unfortunately, the news was followed by reports that the cause of the disease was a complication of vaccination. In fact, this disease is genetic and vaccine can not cause it. We tried to understand the mass anti-scientific movements and the reasons for their appearance.
Of course, misunderstanding or denial of science is not always dangerous. After all, what's the difference if someone thinks that the sun orbits the earth? But in medical matters such a position does not pass without a trace: those who disagree can refuse treatment, causing serious harm to themselves and others. Perhaps the most notable example is the anti-vaccination movement, whose advocates are called anti-VAX in America and anti-vaccination agents in Russia. Although it has been proven that the risks of vaccination complications are insignificant compared to the risks of abandoning it, they insist on the dangers of vaccinations and their uselessness. Even in the most developed countries, the arguments of opponents of vaccination can sound quite convincing, and this leads to outbreaks of seemingly already forgotten diseases, such as poliomyelitis in the Netherlands in the 1990s and whooping cough in California in 2010.
Surprisingly, even many parents vaccinating their children are still not sure how safe it is. This is partly due to the fact that there is not so much clear information on the subject. Some terms only seem familiar and do not require clarification: for example, the same Julia Samoilova answered the question about the hereditary nature of her disease in an interview that "mom and dad donated blood, they have nothing like that." But the word "hereditary" does not mean that the disease is transmitted from mom or dad; it means that the disease is associated with a defect (disorder, mutation, rearrangement of genes) in the hereditary material, that is, the chromosomes. Such a violation may occur for the first time even in a child of two perfectly healthy parents.
Emotions play an important role in decision making - and anti-vaccination campaigns use this
We have already written that a slight cold, indisposition, snot are not a reason to refuse vaccination or to postpone it, and no tests should be carried out before vaccination. The likelihood of risks associated with vaccination is greatly exaggerated, and the most frequent side effect is pain, swelling or redness at the injection site, which disappear in a couple of days. Opponents of vaccination usually rely on research data that allegedly confirmed its connection with the development of autism. His results were quickly refuted, and the design was recognized as incorrect; Millions of dollars were invested in the development of vaccines and the study of autism - there was no connection between them. How do anti-vaccinations manage to convince even rational and educated parents? Very simple: they play on emotions.
People tend to associate themselves with the heroes of specific stories, and especially negative stories. Stories about the terrible consequences of vaccines give rise to doubts in readers, even if they do not believe them. Emotions play a significant role in decision making: when interviewing people who had recently been hospitalized, it turned out that the support and empathy of nurses influenced their impressions even more than the actual result of treatment. This is a normal human reaction - and anti-vaccination campaigns take advantage of this.
They are gaining momentum precisely due to the emotional connection with the public and banal intimidation: when emotions come to the fore, we can no longer calmly assess the facts. Our decisions are influenced not so much by the information, but by the way it is presented: the methods of persuasion used on anti-vaccination sites include not only a juggling of facts. Their creators play on the feelings of parents, raising the conversation about such values as freedom of choice. They involve the themes of a healthy lifestyle, and agitation in favor of alternative medicine, homeopathy or organic products. Reception "because you love your children and want to protect them from danger" works fine. There is a vicious circle: the emotions do not allow to understand the facts, and the facts are not stated clearly enough. As a result, frightened parents pass on unproven, but very impressive information to their friends, and the anti-vaccination movement is expanding.
Juggling with facts, playing with feelings, distrust of statistics, and belief in conspiracy theory are the bricks that make up the antiscientific movement. Another manifestation of it is the denial of the existence of HIV infection; proponents of this approach are called HIV dissidents. Despite the fact that the virus itself has long been able to be seen and photographed, and the most accurate tests have been created to identify it, there are still people who claim that HIV is an invention of pharmaceutical companies. According to their theory, drug manufacturers, and governments of different countries, and doctors, and scientists united to poison people with toxic drugs for financial gain. The most amazing thing is that among those who deny are many HIV-positive people who refuse treatment and die from the complications of AIDS.
Supporters of such theories sum up a whole philosophy for them, create a pseudoscientific theoretical base, without disdaining scientists accusing them of lying and conspiracy. This may include the movement for the most natural, without medical intervention, childbirth. Certainly, a healthy pregnancy is a natural process that can be successfully resolved even without medical care, but many women recall giving birth without anesthesia as horribly painful. Every woman has the right to independently decide whether to use pain relief, but for this she needs the most honest information possible.
Not only the safety of epidural anesthesia has been confirmed long ago, but also the fact that long and painful labor increases the risk of postpartum depression in the mother and is accompanied by stress for the child. From a medical point of view, childbirth without anesthesia is no better than under anesthesia. Her opponents distort the facts, talking about her imaginary danger to the child and the high risk of side effects, and, like other deniers of scientific data, "put pressure on the conscience." Painful childbirth is presented as heroism and dedication for the sake of the child.
And all the same: when we hear about a terrible event that occurred in a family of acquaintances “because of vaccination,” it’s hard not to fall into panic - such a story is much easier to digest than a dry academic text that this does not happen. It is possible that more people make sensible decisions; information about the benefits of vaccination, treatment and pain relief should also be conveyed in the form of personal stories. It may be time for ministries of health in different countries to move from bird language to human language - you need to talk about serious things even, remembering such values as freedom of choice, the right to receive truthful data, and responsibility for the health of loved ones and those around you.
Photo: propum - stock.adobe.com, Africa Studio - stock.adobe.com, vikingur - stock.adobe.com