Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally?

[Emergent]

I have an old friend from years ago who I now keep in touch with on Facebook. Her posts are fascinating in the amazing variety of conspiracy theories, some outrageous, some maybe partially true. She's a big believer that cannabis oil will cure just about anything and that information of course is being suppressed by the drug companies and the government.

She blames many, if not all, health problems on vaccines. She also subscribes to some disturbing anti-Semitic ideologies, blaming the network of high powered Jews, led by the evil Rothschild family.

I swear, the internet has turned slightly eccentric people into extremists. 30 years ago this woman was into macrobiotics, native Americans, and New Age philosophies.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

There is no reason to be disrespectful. Hear everyone's viewpoint. Understand their perspective. Provide the data/research.

I hope I have't been disrespectful to anyone. I have, on a number of occasions, asked people to share "what they read" as sources to support their side of the argument and I have yet to see a single source posted, let alone a single legitimate source.

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

What of the choices of the immunosupressed, the elderly, the infants? Our patients? They have none. They are much more susceptible to flu.

Shouldn't we as healthy, educated individuals morally make the choice TO get the shot?

It's not about what you want, if you are going the moral route. It's about our responsibilities to others-

as health care workers and human beings.

We agree that getting a flu shot to protect vulnerable populations is a good, moral choice.

Forcing others to get a flu shot is a different moral question.

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

I want to live in a free society.

That means I have to let people make their own decisions about not being injected with flu vaccine, even if those decisions are wrong, misguided, not based on evidence, etc.

I also understand that attempts to use force and actual force will just cause them to strengthen and steel themselves against vaccination further, because that is human nature.

If we were talking about a virus that was causing mass death or deformity I would change my stance and say go ahead and use force. We're not there.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

We agree that getting a flu shot to protect vulnerable populations is a good, moral choice.

Forcing others to get a flu shot is a different moral question.

Mandating that healthcare workers who take care of and work with vulnerable populations to also get their flu vaccine in order to protect said vulnerable population is a good moral choice, and if that healthcare worker does not want to get said vaccinations then they should seriously think about finding another career field that does not put them in regular contact with vulnerable populations.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

I want to live in a free society.

That means I have to let people make their own decisions about not being injected with flu vaccine, even if those decisions are wrong, misguided, not based on evidence, etc.

I also understand that attempts to use force and actual force will just cause them to strengthen and steel themselves against vaccination further, because that is human nature.

If we were talking about a virus that was causing mass death or deformity I would change my stance and say go ahead and use force. We're not there.

Define mass deaths because I think an average of 30,000 flu/flu related deaths per year in US would be considered mass deaths.

You can look at the states that don't allow non-medical exemptions to vaccines to see that mandating vaccines by law to gain entrance to certain public funded places works and it works well compared to other states that allow non-medical exemptions.

I would argue that mandates become the norm and when people see that all the misinformation that were given about vaccines don't happen then it just becomes a routine part of life. It is when we started allowing non-medical exemptions to vaccines that IMHO anti-vaccine sentiment truly started to become a problem in US and elsewhere.

[WestCoastSunRN, MSN, CNS]

. It is when we started allowing non-medical exemptions to vaccines that IMHO anti-vaccine sentiment truly started to become a problem in US and elsewhere.

I know you stated this is your opinion (as opposed to fact), but allow me to say I think this is a way over-simplified explanation for a very complex issue.

Let me say, once again, that I am not anti-vaxx. I don't need to see anymore NIH articles -- though I do read them and appreciate refreshing my understanding of the literature. I also know from reading those studies that they have their limitations (which are transparently explained in the studies). I mention that because those limitations are a perceived weakness for those looking for any evidence that vaccines may not be as safe as the CDC says they are.

The OP of this thread asked if anti-vaxxers are generally conspiracy theorists. At the beginning of this thread several posters said something to the effect of "probably not" -- there are other explanations, etc. What could those explanations be?

People do not trust medical providers today like they used to just 50 years ago. There are reasons for this. Very very complex reasons which include providers spending less and less time with folks all the way to getting blamed for the opioid epidemic.

In the age of information people have access to real and not-real facts. You have people who are far healthier than the providers they go to for their yearly physicals. You have providers who smoke, eat cheetos and drink Diet Coke on a regular basis -- and people start to wonder if they should be taking health advice from these guys. The world isn't a very peaceful place. People are becoming increasingly frustrated and distrustful of government or any authority figures for that matter. I could go on an on. I'm not saying I have those views or concerns. Those aren't bullet points to argue -- it's simply my humble opinion that the vaccine issue is part and symptom of something much bigger.

I realize this thread has gone off in several directions, but to the OP ... I think calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists is too simple and in most cases inaccurate.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

I know you stated this is your opinion (as opposed to fact), but allow me to say I think this is a way over-simplified explanation for a very complex issue.

Let me say, once again, that I am not anti-vaxx. I don't need to see anymore NIH articles -- though I do read them and appreciate refreshing my understanding of the literature. I also know from reading those studies that they have their limitations (which are transparently explained in the studies). I mention that because those limitations are a perceived weakness for those looking for any evidence that vaccines may not be as safe as the CDC says they are.

The OP of this thread asked if anti-vaxxers are generally conspiracy theorists. At the beginning of this thread several posters said something to the effect of "probably not" -- there are other explanations, etc. What could those explanations be?

People do not trust medical providers today like they used to just 50 years ago. There are reasons for this. Very very complex reasons which include providers spending less and less time with folks all the way to getting blamed for the opioid epidemic.

In the age of information people have access to real and not-real facts. You have people who are far healthier than the providers they go to for their yearly physicals. You have providers who smoke, eat cheetos and drink Diet Coke on a regular basis -- and people start to wonder if they should be taking health advice from these guys. The world isn't a very peaceful place. People are becoming increasingly frustrated and distrustful of government or any authority figures for that matter. I could go on an on. I'm not saying I have those views or concerns. Those aren't bullet points to argue -- it's simply my humble opinion that the vaccine issue is part and symptom of something much bigger.

I realize this thread has gone off in several directions, but to the OP ... I think calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists is too simple and in most cases inaccurate.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows vaccines are as safe as stated. The problem is people either choose not to believe those studies or don't know how to understand a literature review and what constitutes hierarchy of evidence.

Vaccine exemptions are on the rise in a number of US states

The anti-vaccine issue is part of much larger anti-science issue that is rampant in the US. People believe in conspiracy theories. Politics is greater than scientific fact for many people.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

The OP of this thread asked if anti-vaxxers are generally conspiracy theorists.

... I think calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists is too simple and in most cases inaccurate.

This is the construct related to science and conspiracy theory that we know from the extant data:

1. Conspiracist ideation predicts the rejection of nearly all scientific principles (to varying extent).

2. Conspiracy theories have components of simultaneous belief in mutually contradictory theories, rely on isolated anecdotal accounts or data outliers, and evidence against the theory is often cited as evidence for the theory in that it indicates a larger role for the conspirators.

3. Conspiracists tend to believe in conspiracy because they themselves are more willing to conspire.

We have all witnessed this construct in real time on this thread.

[WestCoastSunRN, MSN, CNS]

We've witnessed that with one or two posters. I'm not sure that can be extrapolated beyond this very limited forum and audience.

I'm going with it's a complex issue. You go with anti-science - conspiracy theorists. TomAto - Tomahto.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

We've witnessed that with one or two posters. I'm not sure that can be extrapolated beyond this very limited forum and audience.

I'm going with it's a complex issue. You go with anti-science - conspiracy theorists. TomAto - Tomahto.

It is a fairly well documented fact that anti-vaxxers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

Who believes in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories? | The Skeptical OB

The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions

Believing widely doubted conspiracy theories satisfies some people’s need to feel special – Research Digest

[MunoRN, RN]

Do you know why Cochrane came to that conclusion? "High quality randomised controlled trials testing combinations of these interventions are needed." Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 6 or older living in long-term care institutions | Cochrane

How many IRBs do you think would be willing to approve a large RCT that the intervention has already shown to save lives. Influenza Vaccination Information for Health Care Workers | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

I would agree that we could say that it can be reasonably presumed that mandating HCW flu vaccination results in better patient outcomes, but "reasonably presume" and "definitively know" are two very different things, and conflating the two only adds fuel to the vaccine conspiracist fire.

I would suggest actually reading the full abstract, since it didn't find that there are currently no RCTs on the subject, it's analysis included 4 cluster-RCTs and a cohort study, these failed to show any improvement in outcomes with the intervention of mandated vaccination. And there is no prohibition or other inability to perform RCTs when it's presumed an intervention will produce better outcomes, that's actually the basis of most RCTs. The approval of an RCT becomes less likely when a proposed intervention is already well established to be harmful, but RCTs where the current balance of outcomes has not shown clear risk are not challenging to getting a study approved, particularly when both groups currently exist in practice (there are currently facilities that do not mandate vaccinations and there are those that do).

I just love when study authors declare that "RCT is needed" when, as they should understand, there can be no RCT, ever, done. To get study power high enough to allow for calculations which would be deemed valid and reproducible for general population, they will have form control group (that is, not vaccinated and allowed to ride through yearly flu epidemic as they are) of at least couple of thousands of 60+ years old, which will have to receive care from unvaccinated caregivers. Good luck with finding that many people willing to risk their lives in the name of science, and even more of it with the registration of the trial.

Actually the control group would be patients who were cared for by HCWs that were not mandated to be vaccinated, not HCWs that were required to be unvaccinated. Such RCWs already exist and are well within allowable RCT design.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

We've witnessed that with one or two posters. I'm not sure that can be extrapolated beyond this very limited forum and audience.

Have we seen any conspiracists that are on the pro-vaccine side yet?