The Unwitting Contribution of Vaccine Regulation to Vaccine Scepticism

Abstract

This article focuses on an issue which has arguably been neglected by existing accounts of vaccine opposition: the role of institutional and regulatory contexts in feeding vaccine doubts. More specifically, opposition to vaccines does not arise in a vacuum, but may be unwittingly exacerbated by alternative, oppositional interpretations of official sources. Drawing on a study of posts produced by online vaccine critics, I focus on three regulatory areas in the UK and US which appear to be contributing to vaccine-critical arguments: patient information leaflets (‘PILs’), post-licensing surveillance systems, and vaccine injury payment (or compensation) systems. While it could be argued that oppositional interpretations of regulatory systems paint an inaccurate picture of vaccination policies, it is important to acknowledge that vaccine critics' views are not necessarily ‘anti-science’, and stemming from anecdotes, rumours or ‘fake news’. Rather it is official sources, and certain aspects of the vaccine regulatory system itself which are often relied upon by vaccine-critical publics as offering ‘evidence’ of the unsafety of vaccines. When designing messaging around the safety of vaccines, it is therefore important for public health bodies and medicines regulators to understand that package inserts, post-licensing surveillance and compensation schemes are being redeployed in vaccine-critical online communities as admissions of culpability.