“How the Word Vaccine Can Spread So Much Fear”

As we all know, news outlets can be biased and can stretch the truth or create stories to support their side. This can create panic and confusion to the public and can sometimes be dangerous or harmful. In recent years it has been hard for the science community to deliver correct information to the public without fake news sources. Ever since there was an increase in the use of vaccines there are always parents and individuals fearful of what vaccines are and what they are capable of. In recent years, some are refusing to use vaccines because of information they have read from outside media sources. Many of these sources use the ingredients of vaccines to scare the public like mercury and Formaldehyde. So there would be a good enough reason as to why the word “vaccine” creates so much fear and controversy. In the article “Court ruling confirms Gardasil vaccine kills people… scientific evidence beyond any doubt… so where is the outcry?” by Natural News, the writer uses the word a lot. Almost 17 times over the course of a couple paragraphs. Not only using the word by itself but with negative terms to it like death and kill to prove their point. The site Natural News is a combination of health food related news, health boosting ads controversial topics, something you would not see on a health and wellness site. The site’s main audience is mostly people of the conservitive political side or science doubters. The article shares very believable information that supports the claim that vaccines are dangerous for all.Their choice of negative rhetoric is a main reason why the article went viral.

This article has many attributes that made it so popular with the anti-vax community. This article was published on Thursday, April 05, 2018 by Lance D Johnson and it goes into great detail about how the HPV vaccine or Gardasil, kills hundreds of thousands of people. The article was shared over 114,000 times (“The Most Popular Health Articles of 2018, a Scientific Credibility Review.”) and with the other varieties of this article probably more. This reading mainly focuses on the political aspect rather than actual science of how good vaccines are for you. The entire article talks about a court case that took place to justify the vaccine, Gardasil, killed a young woman named Christina Richelle Tarsell. She received the vaccine a couple days before her “unexplained” death and the court case ruled that in this case the death could have been caused by the vaccine. The court case did not rule the vaccine itself causes death or that it is dangerous and should be taken off the list of vaccines deemed safe. The article frames it to say the vaccine is completely bad and why isn’t there public outcry for it to be removed.  The article states “The Gardasil vaccine is responsible for ending the lives of 271 young women to date” (Lance D “Court Ruling Confirms Gardasil Vaccine Kills People… Scientific Evidence beyond Any Doubt… so Where Is the Outcry?”),  when at a later date the FDA states “ As of December 31, 2008, 32 deaths had been reported to VAERS” (Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Gardasil Vaccine Safety.”) about the vaccine. The article follows up with “ If 271 young people died in a school shooting, the news coverage would be nonstop in support of gun bans” (Lance). The writer wants to persuade the reader to believe these numbers not based on supporting facts but on emotion and what the audience of that website wants. 

The case was real but the facts about the case were not, but still the article made it around to platforms like Forbes and they state “People who say that Gardasil has killed a hundred people and hurt tens of thousands are repeating a misuse of data to generate fear. And their message is spin, not fact”(Herper, “Here Is How We Know Gardasil Has Not Killed 100 People.”). The article constantly takes information out of context and uses it to the websites benefit to persuade their audience.

In the article the use of the word vaccine is put into a negative light to influence readers to read the article since it is a controversial topic. Even in the title “Gardasil vaccine kills people.” That alone is enough to get people to share the article without doing more research. It’s such a bold statement that you want to read more and people who see the “natural” lifestyle the outlet puts on, will be more likely to believe them.   Almost every time the word vaccine is used, there is a negative connotation to it like death, kills, destroys, end lives, etc. A vaccine is a medicine to prevent deadly diseases in this case HPV (Human Papillomavirus) but in this article it is shown to be the cause of death in a certain individual. When saying the vaccine alone “kills” people it’s seen as the only possibility, but if “can kill” is the statement then there is more  possibility for other scenarios. The second phrasing just doesn’t get as many views or shares, than a direct correlation. The writer stretches the truth of the court case to make it appear to be in their favor and uses very big and scary words to persuade the reader they are right.

The media knows they can change the viewers point of view by using major controversial topics. The word vaccine to the public means fear or safety, but to the media it means controversy and views Many media outlets choose to  report on things that are controversial not to give non biased information, but to bring in the bigger crowd. The media does control how the public will react. According to Tom Jefferson “Since the publication of the Wakefield study on 29 Febuary 1998 public concern fueled by extensive media coverage, caused a steady decline in MMR coverage in parts of the United Kingdom, with a subsequent risk of a decline in herd immunity and resurgence in morbidity” (“Real or Perceived Adverse Effects of Vaccines and the Media: A Tale of Our Times”). In this case there was a drastic decrease in MMR coverage and that could have happened in the Natural News article. The media knows I can change your ideals with one good story.

The article also uses gun violence and vaccines in comparison to make the public readers more fearful of the situation. The writer states, “If the young girl had been gunned down by a madman with an AR-15, then there’d be national headlines and a march on Washington. Since this young woman was “shot” to death by a vaccine, the whole story gets swept under the rug,” and “If 271 young people died in a school shooting, the news coverage would be nonstop in support of gun bans. How about a ban on Gardasil – a real modern day assault weapon?” (Johnson, Court ruling confirms Gardasil vaccine kills people… scientific evidence beyond any doubt… so where is the outcry?). This comparison sets the negative tone for the medicine and makes it seem as if vaccines should have the same fear from the public as gun violence. The writer blames “the public” and media outlets for worrying more about gun violence than this one vaccine. He uses the words  “the public,” as a way to directly address the audience. To more or less bring them in and tell them they need to do something about the issue. 

The article shows its bias by only including what they want to hear, leaving out important information, which would have changed the outcome of how the article went viral. The book FAQs on Vaccines and Immunization Practices, by Vipin M.Vashishtha, explains both sides of the vaccine controversy without bias. The book explains a tactic that the article by Natural news used to convince readers to move to the other side. The media chooses to leave out important information to persuade their audience into believing their side. This article uses information that the media is supposed to inform us on but based on their bias they don’t include like “The benefits of immunization in preventing disease are well proven, the risks of diseases and complications are more serious than that of immunization, no vaccine is 100% safe, no vaccine is 100% effective…,” ( pg.74,Vashishtha). The article solely relies on feelings and leaves out the facts to persuade the audience into following their ideals.

Even smaller news outlets can have big biases and it can reflect on the information they put out. The author states “News media, social media, and search engines have become so biased and personalized that we are stuck in filter bubbles, where we’re only ex” (“Media Bias Chart.”). The public has the tendency to stick with the information they view is true. If the person is very rightest in their views they will view more articles and it doesn’t matter the source, big or small. If viewers only search or look at the harmful effects of vaccines they can find articles like the one on Natural news and keep their bias in a sort of flow. 

To conclude, the writer uses negative adjectives next to the word vaccine to place fear into the reader’s mind and made bold claims about the item in question. The message that was put out was very eye catching and relatable to the audience’s beliefs. The writer uses the same words over and over to make the reader associate vaccines with those words subconsciously. Stretching the truth for the media is not uncommon but to spread lies about misinformation can be dangerous and can cause chaos.  In the society we live in vaccines already seem scary enough due to the fact of misinformation. As a society there will always be people who are afraid of what vaccines can possibly do.

 

Work Cited

Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Gardasil Vaccine Safety.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/gardasil-vaccine-safety.

Jefferson, Tom. “Real or Perceived Adverse Effects of Vaccines and the Media: A Tale of Our Times.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-), vol. 54, no. 6, 2000, pp. 402–403. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25569207. Accessed 27 Apr. 2020

Johnson, Lance D. “Court Ruling Confirms Gardasil Vaccine Kills People… Scientific Evidence beyond Any Doubt… so Where Is the Outcry?” NaturalNews.com, 30 Jan. 2019, www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-05-court-ruling-confirms-gardasil-vaccine-kills-people-scientific-evidence-beyond-any-doubt.html.

Herper, Matthew. “Here Is How We Know Gardasil Has Not Killed 100 People.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 26 Feb. 2015, www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/05/03/here-is-how-we-know-gardasil-has-not-killed-100-people/#45541f293590.

“The Most Popular Health Articles of 2018, a Scientific Credibility Review.” Health Feedback, 28 June 2019, healthfeedback.org/the-most-popular-health-articles-of-2018-a-scientific-credibility-review/#Review9..

Vashishtha Vipin M, et al. FAQs on Vaccines and Immunization Practices, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/newpaltz-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4520589. Created from newpaltz-ebooks on 2020-04-27 12:26:27