3.1. A Profile of Anti-Vaccine Tweeters
To answer RQ1, we explored the general Twitter profile of those posting anti-vaccine tweets ( Table 1 ). As can be seen, the 334 tweets in our sample were generated by a total of 196 users, the vast majority of whom were posting from the UK (87%) and the rest from three British Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Gibraltar). In terms of identities, which were examined through the information provided in “user name” and “biography” texts, 48.5% of these unique users were classified as anonymous. In other words, almost half of the anti-vaccine tweeters in this sample did not provide enough data for others to identify them (e.g., no full name, nick/pseudo name, no occupation, no clear face picture, no affiliation, vague biography). Of those who did (i.e., non-anonymous users), the vast majority were ordinary lay people posting as parents and activists (39% of the sample), followed by the so-called “alternative health” practitioners (e.g., natural therapists, holistic therapists, homeopaths), celebrities, health professionals and experts, the media and so on.
Posters of the sampled anti-vaccine tweets are relatively active users: only 18% had tweeted less than 1000 times while more than half (52%) had made at least 5000 tweets. The median number of tweets made by this sample of users was 5015—i.e., 50% of the anti-vaccine tweeters had contributed at least 5015 posts to the Twitter sphere. However, the top 10% accounted for 62% of all the sampled anti-vaccine tweets. In terms of network sizes, anti-vaccine tweeters in the sample were followed by a median of 385 other users and followed a media of 454.
n = 131), 83% were by lay people (i.e., those with no specified health or health-related expertise), 5% by those self-identified as alternative health practitioners (e.g., homeopaths, natural/holistic therapists), 3% by scientists or health professionals, and 3% by the mainstream media. Prevalent content characteristics of anti-vaccine tweets. To identify the general characteristics of negative tweets about vaccines, we focused on eight specific variables, presented in Table 2 . About 60% of the tweets (201) had an anonymous author. Of the tweets with identifiable authors (= 131), 83% were by lay people (i.e., those with no specified health or health-related expertise), 5% by those self-identified as alternative health practitioners (e.g., homeopaths, natural/holistic therapists), 3% by scientists or health professionals, and 3% by the mainstream media.
In relation to the type of content, the majority of tweets (70%, n = 236) were based on personal opinion, with one-fifth using second-hand news and information, 9% using personal experience with vaccination and only 1.5% making a point on the basis of research findings of sorts. The majority of anti-vaccine tweets (74%) were posted from a general perspective with no mention of any specific vaccine, with measles, MMR and HPV being the most oft-mentioned specific vaccines in the rest of the sample (6.3%, 5.4% and 4.8%, respectively).
As for the origin of tweeted information, the majority (57%) of the sample did not include a clear source. Of those with clear source, the general picture is one that lacks a strong presence of more authentic science information sources—such as research findings published by public authorities or academic journals (only 3%) or the mainstream media (10%). Meanwhile, less authentic sources—such as social media, anti-vaccine websites (e.g., vaccineimpact.com) and alternative health sources (e.g., greenmedinfo.com, newstarget.com, naturalnews.com)—were present in 27% of the sample.
In terms of framing, our inductive coding resulted in 12 categories. 5.4% of the tweets are “frameless” as they contain nothing but links to some anti-vaccine content. Among the rest, vaccine safety was the most prevalent, with three distinctive framing categories. The first group, accounting for 10.3% of the sample, consists of tweets framing vaccines as containers of unsafe, toxic chemical compounds. Some of these highlighting this as a general problem—e.g., “Vaccination isn’t the issue; however, what the vaccines contain is the BIG issue!”—while others list a range of “toxic components” such as mercury, thiomersal, heavy metals, xenobiotics, fetal cells, baby foreskins and carcinogens.
The other two safety-framing categories are tweets linking vaccination specifically to autism (7.3%) and those highlighting other side effects—often expressed as “vaccine injuries” or “adverse reactions”—such as deaths, brain damages, sterilisation, fever and so on (27.2%). One example of this is the tweet by a widely followed homeopath:
New enquiry this morning. 7yr old boy. Met all milestones up until 3 yrs old. After vaccines lost all speech & autism symptoms started. Doctors denied any link between the vaccs; the regression with ‘there’s no evidence’. Adverse reaction not recorded. How many more? #vaxxed
A further 10.6% questioned the effectiveness of, and by extension the need for, vaccination. This is either indirectly through a dramatic story like the above by the Sun and Scottish Sun, or directly (sometimes uncivilly) as seen in the following:
I hear that, but [they’re] not for me. The fact [is that] we’re still providing vaccines for something that’s no longer a common factor! Plus the government know there’s chance it can cause disability. They payout a maximum of £120k for each case. It’s a big risk to take.
Every time I see a meme about anti-vaxxers... I’m reminded I’d be some kind of poster child for them unintentionally. Never been vaccinated and I lived (past) 18.
How is not vaccinating dangerous; it’s the non vaxxed that don’t carry the diseases and the vaxxed that do carry them, so who’s the twat(?) Try educating yourself before getting into name calling you ignorant asshole. Away, take your dog to play in traffic.
Beyond the “problematic” medical effects of vaccines are a range of categories representing non-medical concerns. The most frequent of these are tweets framing vaccination as a non-health enterprise associated with conflicts of interests, influences and manipulation by the pharmaceutical industry, media, politicians, public authorities and clinicians (39 tweets, or 11.5% of the sample). A further breakdown of these tweets shows that the majority (23 out of 39, or 59%) referred to the financial interests and influences of “big pharma”. These take the simple form of a headline with link to the sourced story such as:
Merck Ramps Up MMR Vaccine Production Amid Measles Hysteria
or a leading question:
Is Bought movie exposing the ugly truth behind vaccines, GMO’s and the pharma industry? #BigPharma #vaccination
or, in most cases, a deliberate argument:
Money money money they take and ban the natural plants from human consumption, just to harvest and cultivate them into a profitable pill or vaccination.
Here is the REAL importance of the HPV vaccine for Merck. If the public believes it is possible to “vaccinate for cancers” the sky is then limit for them. Lymphomas, Leukemia, Pancreatic Lung & Breast Cancers, Brain Tumors etc, etc...; #IDONOTCONSENT #VaxWoke #HealthFreedom
Alongside these are tweets that thrash out conspiracy theories around vaccines (5.1%). In March 2019, for example, in response to Amazon’s decision to remove anti-vaccine documentaries from its Prime service (which it made to calm public and political pressures), a UK-based anonymous tweeter claimed, with no evidence but a link to an anti-vaccine American doctor’s tweet, that it was just part of Amazon’s attempt to enter the pharmacy market:
#doctors & #politicians long in bed w/ #Vaccine manufacturers, harming people -- NOW #AMAZON NOW JOINS THE GANGBANG. #vaxwoke #vaxxed
Some others (4.5%) sought to sow doubts on the science of vaccination by framing it as methodologically or ethically questionable, such as the following:
If they vaccinate from birth there can be no comparison studies. It really is a scene from Brave New World. Soon humans will be created in test tubes, viviparous birth will be seen as irresponsible. I hope you are right and that those responsible will get their just desserts.
This was followed by vaccination-as-choice tweets, which project obligatory vaccination as a violation of parental rights to choose what they see as best for their children (9.4%). Some examples include the following:
I definitely, 100% do not support mandatory vaccination. There are risks of injury and death to every vaccine. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Additionally, you can’t force me to inject human diploid cells from aborted fetuses into my child.
Well said—the issue of #HealthFreedom isn’t about whether vaccines are effective or safe or both or whatever. The issue is about freedom, liberty, and being free to determine what goes in our own bodies. These children are a danger to no one.
Very soon this will be their argument for mandatory adult vaccination. Once they get the kiddies legislation done, they will say, “you’re right! We will NEVER have herd immunity until all the adults are forced vaxxed too. That one is coming.
Next are tweets that framed anti-vaccine perspectives as being suppressed and censored by the mainstream elite. These make up 4.2% of the sample and can be exemplified by the following:
Difficult to change when importance of vaccines are ‘sold’ to public on basis of necessity of max uptake bec of herd immunity & we hv stating nothing negative shld be communicated to public re vaccines!! Huge changes needed to improve public trust.
There are all manners of people against vaccines; not hard to find if you look. Most are simple parents of injured kids with no big platform. And the media moratorium on reporting the story in a balanced way is very suspicious. Any other topic, they would play up the conflict.
MASSIVE #censorship of #vaccine safety lack in full force. Thoughts?
Finally, a small number of the sampled tweets (3.3%) contain nothing but a simple disp-quote or declaration of the poster’s anti-vaccine position in conversation with other tweeters, such as the following:
Not sure why but I feel people think I’m pro vaccines. I’m not.
I’m not a supporter of vaccines. Why the hostility?