Content and Design Attributes of Antivaccination Websites

Wolfe R, Sharp L, Lipsky M

Objective Examine content and design attributes of antivaccination websites and determine claims and concerns. Methods Using 10 Internet search engines, 772 active sites were located using keywords related to "vaccine." Online health/medical journals and newspapers, newsgroups containing online conversations, and sites not in English were excluded. Twelve of the 772 sites opposed childhood vaccinations, and 10 additional links from those 12 sites resulted in 22 total sites for final data extraction. Results Although considered one of healthcare's greatest accomplishments, vaccines are under attack on the Internet. Antivaccination websites provide information - largely unsupported by mainstream medicine - that challenges the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, claims governmental abuses, and supports alternative health measures. Eighty percent of adults use the Internet for health information, and 52 percent of them believe "almost all" or "most" of this information to be credible. This study found the sites commonly exhibit the following vaccine content claims: they cause idiopathic illness (100%), they erode immunity (95%), adverse reactions are underreported (95%), policy is motivated by profit (91%), they receive undue credit for disease eradication (73%), and they violate civil liberties (77%). The sites' design attributes include: links to other antivaccination sites (100%), information on avoiding vaccinations (64%), and stories of children allegedly killed or harmed by vaccines (55%). Conclusion Antivaccination sites host a variety of claims largely unsubstantiated by scientific literature. Relying heavily on emotional appeal to relay their messages, the sites express safety concerns regarding immunizations and varying levels of distrust in medicine. There appears to be an increase in parents seeking vaccination exemptions for their children, which eventually could become a risk to society. To view letters in response to this study and reactions from the authors, visit http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v288n14/ffull/jlt1009-2.html J Am Med Assoc June 26, 2002;287(24):3245(4). Return to Top