This is part two in a series. Read part one here.
The online conspiracy business has real world consequences. Medical professionals are concerned that claims from unqualified influencers are increasingly thriving in a vacuum of trust.
In Samoa last year an outbreak of measles killed over 80 children. At the same time, online anti-vaxxer entrepreneur Tay Winterstein compared the Samoan government to Nazi Germany after Samoa enforced vaccination.
In the US a measles outbreak in 2019 led to 1300 cases across 31 states. The Centres for Disease Control reported it was the highest number of cases since 1992, with the majority being people who were not vaccinated.
The World Health Organisation named “vaccination hesitancy” in its top 10 health risks worldwide last year.
Locally, Dr Chris Moy of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) told Inq that some patients were objecting even to tetanus injections.
“It’s making our job hard,” said Moy, chair of the AMA’s ethics and medico-legal committee. “People have this philosophy of the natural versus the artificial” — a reflection of the message of online influencers.
Yet for all the impact that message is having, Inq’s inquiries show that authorities have been largely powerless when it comes to halting the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theory.
Social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have been the super spreaders of false information. Despite promises to rein it in, a study released last week by the UK’s Centre for Countering Digital Hate found that the platforms were failing to act on more than 90% of posts which contained misinformation about coronavirus.
Examples included false claims that:
- COVID-19 is caused by vaccines
- 5G mobile technology poisons cells and causes COVID-19
- COVID-19 is a “false flag” in order to force compulsory vaccinations
- Seven children died in a vaccination trial in Africa.
The study said that the results were “in stark contrast to public statements made by each social media company claiming to be taking strong action to stamp out coronavirus misinformation”.
In Australia, one Facebook user (who asked not to be identified) told Inq that the 5G-focused Facebook group they are a member of changed its name to avoid being shut down by Facebook. It’s now named “Sydney For Safe Technology”.
The group member said the group had battled to keep out those who linked 5G to the spread of coronavirus, though they claimed that Bill Gates (a target of derision among conspiracy theory groups for his vocal role in tackling the spread of viruses) was seeking to control the world’s population through a project called “ID2020“.
“What medical qualifications does Bill Gates have to talk about immunisation?” they asked.
And what of the power of medical regulators to stop false claims made by online operators such as celebrity chef Pete Evans and Winterstein — who has leveraged her marriage to NRL player Frank Winterstein.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration moved quickly to stop Evans selling a quack device which he suggested would work against the coronavirus. But Australia’s health system is not nearly as effective when it comes to stopping false claims that have an impact on public health.
A key problem is that there is no unified approach from state and federal governments.
“Bloody hopeless” is the judgement of Ken McLeod, who has been working to bring to account those who make quack medical claims.
McLeod worked as a senior federal bureaucrat and is a member of Friends of Science in Medicine, an organisation of health experts formed in 2011 to emphasise the importance of basing Australian healthcare on evidence, scientifically sound research and established scientific knowledge.
McLeod has been working, unpaid, along with a group of other researchers, doctors and scientists, to gather the evidence for regulators to act.
He became involved in debunking anti-vaxxer claims more than a decade ago after anti-vaccination activists launched a personal attack on the parents of Dana McCaffery, who died from whooping cough at just four weeks old.
The McCaffreys lived in an area that had low immunisation rates. Following the death of Dana, they became vocal proponents of vaccination — and targets of anti-vaxxers.
“The parents got a tsunami of abuse,” McLeod said. McLeod also saw his younger sister battle the effects of polio from age five — “a vision which is seared into my brain”.
McLeod told Inq that authorities have failed to act on hundreds of complaints over the years.
“Regulators are short of resources and regulatory powers,” he said. “One of our major criticisms is that we give them detailed information and all they do is send out warning letters.”
McLeod charges that chiropractors in particular have “failed to clean up their act” and continue to harbour anti-vaxxers in their ranks.
A spokesperson for the Chiropractic Board of Australia said it and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency had taken action “in response to a number of concerns raised about practitioners who have advocated against evidence-based vaccination programs”.
This included restricting practitioners’ work “when there was a serious risk to the public”.
In NSW the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) has published public health warnings on a handful of individuals and organisations that promote anti-vaccination messages.
In 2014 the HCCC warned that one group, the Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN), “does not provide reliable information in relation to certain vaccines and vaccination more generally”. The HCCC considered the AVN’s dissemination of “misleading, misrepresented and incorrect information” was likely to “detrimentally affect” clinical management or care.
Despite that warning, made in 2014, the AVN has continued unbowed.
Earlier this year the World Health Organisation (WHO) was forced to ask the AVN to stop using the WHO logo on a misleading press release posted to Facebook. The post was shared 30,000 times before it was removed, according to the AVN. The group claimed the press release “went viral because it told the truth about vaccination”.
When asked why the NSW HCCC has not used its powers of prohibition when it comes to false health claims made by celebrity influences and bloggers, a spokesperson told Inq that issuing a public warning “has been adopted as a power that we can use in a more preventative way and with wider reach than a prohibition order against an individual”. They conceded, however, that determining the effectiveness of a public warning was “challenging”.
NSW Health said it doesn’t have a regulatory role on the spread of misinformation. Instead, it said, it conducts education and awareness campaigns with a focus on areas that have been “vaccine resistant”.
But indications are that the zealots of the anti-vaxx and 5G conspiracy movements have little regard for regulations.
Late last year, for example, one anti-vaxxer posed as a federal official to order a Melbourne clinic to remove vaccine posters.
On social media, anti-vaxxers and 5G conspiracy theorists have sidestepped attempts to block their messaging by casting themselves as pro-freedom or pro-“informed choice”.
The AMA’s Moy told Inq that social media operators like Winterstein are themselves profiting from an undeclared “secondary gain” in terms of how they monetise their social media brands.
“We have a code of ethics. A doctor would get struck off if we failed to declare payments,” he said.
Moy, though, warned that stopping free speech was not the way to counter online celebrities.
“We need to get influencers who are credible within a given group and will strike a chord within that community to counter misinformation,” he said. “We need to do it.”
This article has been amended to include a comment by the NSW HCCC.
I agree it is mindfully sensible, effective preventative medicine to use vaccinations in order to control diseases in whole populations, as it has been very successful in many ways. However I dont think polarising the issue into pro and anti vax is scientific nor valid. That makes it a political football. Here’s an article on why the science needs to be brought into greater light so that children are unharmed. When I was vaccinated in the 1960’s and 1970’s school programs, I had fewer vaccinations than are considered normal now, mostly, I built my own immunity and the immunity of the group very much assisted me. However these children have suffered as a result of a flu shot and the evidence for why this happened needs to be found so that parents can trust our medical and political leaders to investigate sensibly without polarising or name calling. I expect the same of balanced journalism. Our children depend upon it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-26/flu-jab-sick-toll-passes-250/411662?fbclid=IwAR1XRc1fRPQshl77SpHLsqegS_CQH_7LqLUt6S9DK2aIucsNoNmnXKejQ_E
Just to follow up on my comments above on the 2010 article on children below 5 years of age being sick in WA after flu shots, I note that the current Australian Government (2020) recommendation is to vaccinate children between 6 month and 5 years old for flu. I’m assuming the science is fully confirmed now that there are no adverse reactions for such tiny children. I’d say it’s more mindful to understand that these new ideas to vaccinate such tiny children against what the rest of us built our own immunity for is an interesting idea. My body builds its immune system by healing itself, I gain greater immunity by having to build my own army of good white blood cells, etc by good eating, good sleeping, good movement, love, enjoying my play/work, good social interaction, chiropractic or extra herbs or massage and it all assists me to recover from and prevent flu. I’m uncertain that we need to vaccinate young children and even mid age adults, against flu, perhaps the parents and children need other resources to build their bodies health. I do agree we need vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, chicken pox, hepatitis and other disease.
https://www.health.gov.au/news/protect-your-child-by-vaccinating-against-flu
I just wish to say that for me when, what, how and how much to vaccinate (in what combination and in what time frame) is about both science and choice, it’s not about anti and pro. My observation is that no one can listen to each other, if the argument is polarised, how is that benefiting us as a community please Crikey? How is it helping the science to evolve, to sort wheat from chaff, how does it help my family to be healthy? Each of us has many experiences, of many grey areas, things are not black and white. Thank you.
In addition, I agree the Wuhan and 5 G and Corona conspiracies are appalling, at a time when we all need to be mindful the science for months wasn’t settled and we are still working it through. I cannot understand why folk would mix all those ideas up at this time?
It’s sad really the rise in antivax rhetoric and how it has taken hold, yet the reality is that millions of people have been saved from terrible diseases.
And those millions include the antivaxers who spread their nonsense as they knowingly ride on the backs of the more sensible people who have created the “herd immunity” on which they rely.
Measles used to kill about 300 a year here, another 300 probably died from the after effects over the three years after. I’ve had it and it ain’t fun! I’d love one of these worthless parasites to get lyssavirus, tetanus or the like. Then we would no longer have to listen to the moron and also their dimwit allies might notice (might I say). I had classmates who’d had polio. I remember the terror of the epidemic for my parents. Influencers, also worthless parasites!!
Measles, mumps and even chicken pox were almost a rite of passage back in those days. Your comment is a Beat Up.
And this article is a complete Beat Up too.
Kicking anti-vaxers is the new sport in town these days and Hardaker completely misses the point.
It’s not about vaxing or non vaxing, It’s about a variation of the flu that has k-lled less than 1% of people, mainly with pre-existing medical conditions or between the age of 80 – 100. Surely these statistics present the option of choice when it comes to vaccines. Hardaker has shown his hand. This article seeks to divide and categorize people in one camp or another and present any criticism of the vax juggernaut as crazy conspiracy theorists. Most people who come to this news site are at least suspicious or wary of any type of current political, health or social affairs in light of world events That’s why we come here. We are seeking an alternate view to help provide much needed balance. Hardaker has failed to present a balanced view. If we want main-stream information then we go to the MSM broadsheets. Perhaps this article is some type of govt or industrial health & medical complex press release, don’t know, but it is so biased it’s ridiculous. It does n’t make the fit for an alternate balanced Crikey article.
Memo to David Hardaker: the street talk, pub talk, shopping centre talk, xmas dinner talk, is not anti-vax. It’s Pro Choice. Get over it.
It’s a long time since the original comment, but I think it’s a bit harsh calling anti vaxers worthless parasites. As far as I can tell, most of them are mentally ill. They need help, not vilification
Very liberal minded of you. Let us give them treatment so they agree with ‘us’ rather than just calling them idiots and shutting them down.
Social media is the illness, antivac profiling for financial gain just one of the symptoms.
There seems to be a rise of those who think one person’s ignorance is as good as another’s knowledge. So it bothers me when it’s claimed as a free speech issue, as it’s a tactic to avoid the underlying epistemic claims that surround both arguments.
The sad reality is most of us aren’t in a position to judge the epistemic validity of claims because we are not trained to use those epistemic tools, nor do we have the subject matter expertise that experts use to make those decisions. The ones with that expertise are the scientists in the relevant field, who have dedicated decades of their lives to how to properly study the questions. Anything other than deferring to the scientists is just delusional noise.
Responsible free speech comes with caveats and disclaimers. That is, if an anti vaxxer makes it clear that they are basing their claims on no reviewed evidence and that they have no relevant qualifications then that’s at least something.
A few anti vaxxers are medically qualified. In that case an honest caveat should be added that their views are opposite to almost all other medical professionals and practice.
Anti vax always reminds me of Einstein’s saying there are only two infinites – the universe and human stupidity- and he’s not sure about the universe.
Creationists would do “credential harvesting” – find PhDs that would dismiss the scientific cafe against evolution – in order to bolster the perception among the faithful that the science doesn’t infact dismiss the literal interpretation of Genesis. The exercise missed the point of the science being dismissed, though, because it didn’t address the scientific case on scientific terms. For all those PhDs espousing a young earth and special creation of each species, none were making the case in the scientific literature and among the scientific community. The scientific case for evolution remained unaddressed as the focus was to assuage any doubts of believers.
Whether any given vaccine offers protection is a matter of science. How the vaccine works, what it’s efficacy is, what side effects there are, etc. is a matter of science. The battle over vaccines in the public eye might be a proxy to the science, but it’s not going to be decided by finding credentialed mouthpieces – except to the extent that the scientists inform us about the science. Because whatever science underpins the claims being debated, that science will stay the same whether the anti-vax movement is culturally successful. They simply aren’t part of the scientific conversation, just like those creationists desperate to find credentialed denialists.
I’ve just been reviewing these articles, David, which I only skimmed when they were published.
I don’t personally think freedom of speech is damaged when people are cashing in on harmful and either false or inadequately tested assertions, and that’s what I think needs to be at the heart of any regulation: peddling influence that harms needs to be managed by the community; peddling influence that harms for money needs to be swept up under medical and commercial regulations just as we manage commercially-interested environmental damage and workplace risks.
I write a quasi-weekly report on Covid data for friends and family, and vaccination risk and efficacy has lately come up in follow-up discussion. It’s appropriate to be concerned and appropriate to dig into the data. I don’t think penalising greedy liars and cynical ignoramuses impedes that at all.
The question I ask my friends and family to focus on is this: if you are concerned, what is the minimum evidence that would change your mind? Before offering evidence supporting your position, say what minimum reasonable evidence you’d accept as refuting it.
Then I offer what reasonable minimum evidence would change mine and ask them to reciprocate. If they can’t I point out that their thinking is not based on evidence but their own feelings, that seven billion other interested parties have feelings too, so truth is much more important here.