ii ABSTRACT
Vaccine hesitancy is as old as the vaccine itself, yet this issue has been historically
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor Prof. Jordynn Jack of the Department of English and Comparative Literature at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Prof. Jack was endlessly patient with the bumbling beginnings of this project, as well as all of the muddled middle parts, and I am incredibly grateful for her guidance throughout this process.
I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Prof. Jane Thrailkill and Dr. Melissa Geil of the Department of English and Comparative Literature at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for their valuable comments on this thesis.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...1
The History...1
The Problem... 3
The Potential Solution... 7
The Project... 9
CHAPTER 1: THE VAXXED NARRATIVE... 13
A Claim of Conspiracy... 15
An Indictment of Injustice... 19
The Charges and the Evidence...19
The Direct Examination... 20
The Mistrial...23
The Closing Statement... 24
A Verdict of Victimization... 25
Autistic Children... 25
Autism Families... 27
Society at Large... 29
Conclusion... 30
CHAPTER TWO: THE PRESS RESPONSE... 34
The Question of Credentials: Reframing Allegations of Injustice... 38
The Series of Scandals: Burying the Conspiracy Narrative... 39
The Quiet Claims: A Motion to Dismiss... 41
The Advocate for Alternatives: Complicating the Forces of Victimization... 42
v
CHAPTER THREE: THE PUBLIC EXCHANGE... 48
A Question of Epistemology... 50
Science (as a Segue to Skepticism)...52
Skepticism (as a Segue to Science)...53
Testimonies of Terror... 56
Saviors or Charlatans?...58
“Anti-Vax Trolls” vs. “Pro-Vax Shills”... 60
Is Autism the Real Victimizer?... 61
Conclusion... 64
CONCLUSION... 68
1
INTRODUCTION
Vaccine hesitancy, or an intentional delay or refusal of vaccination despite readily available access, is not a new phenomenon; in fact, it technically predates vaccination itself (Dubé et al., “Vaccine Hesitancy, Vaccine Refusal…” 100). Concerns about vaccines trace their roots to the late nineteenth century practice of variolation, or the intentional inoculation of healthy individuals with smallpox cultures from ill patients to produce a controlled infection that confers later immunity (Wolfe and Sharp 430). During that age of rampant quackery, the practice was met with skepticism, particularly due to the dangers associated the intentional smallpox infection.
The History
2
This ruling, however, would not prove to be the end of vaccine skepticism. Despite a period of relative vaccine confidence during the mid-twentieth century, by the 1970s, the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus vaccine (DPT) was called into question. A 1974 London report described 56 children who developed neurological complications after receiving pertussis vaccine. This report led to the 1982 WRC-TV broadcast of the film DPT: Vaccine Roulette, thereby
spreading anti-DPT sentiments to the United States. Such sentiments were further exacerbated by a American Academy of Neurology meeting presentation in the same year suggesting that DPT vaccine causes sudden infant death syndrome (Fenichel 193). Although both associations were later disproven, lawsuits by concerned parents against pharmaceutical companies reduced their willingness to manufacture vaccines, driving up prices. Consequently, the United States Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986, allowing parents to obtain compensation for vaccine-induced injuries while protecting vaccine manufacturers from litigation and establishing the Vaccine Adverse Event Report System, through which providers could officially record suspected injuries reported by parents (Dubé et al., “Vaccine Hesitancy, Vaccine Refusal…” 104, Smith 267). Unfortunately, the compensation mechanism created by NCVIA, colloquially known as “Vaccine Court,” has been interpreted among vaccine skeptics as evidence that a corrupt government is enabling vaccine manufacturers to freely produce harmful vaccines without due punishment, rather than an attempt to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to continue producing vaccines while ensuring proper repayment for children affected by adverse side effects (Vaxxed). This perception has galvanized current vaccine hesitant activists to cite cases ruled in favor of the petitioning parents as evidence for vaccine dangers.
3
children until more evidence was available to ascertain its safety (Mnookin). Although the paper was later retracted and this link has long since been disproven, the enormous media firestorm along with extensive propagation of the accusation among vaccine hesitant groups that followed his shocking announcement ensured that anti-MMR attitudes persist even today.
Thus, the historical evidence suggests that this anti-MMR flavor of vaccine hesitancy is part of a broader trend rather than an anomaly. Unfortunately, it is a trend with real consequences for public health. Low vaccination rates have been linked to epidemics of otherwise
low-prevalence vaccine preventable diseases. For instance, the 2017 measles outbreak in a Somali-American community in Minnesota has been linked to anomalously low vaccination rates
following talks by vaccine skeptical activists (Dyer j2378). During the same year, measles rates in Europe quadrupled, a phenomenon attributed to “anti-vaccine hysteria” (McNeil D3).
Additionally, from an economic standpoint, the financial burden of a 5% reduction in MMR vaccination coverage is projected to result in a 3-fold increase in annual measles cases and cost $2.1 million for the public sector (Lo and Hotez 887). As a result, vaccine hesitancy has become a subject of study across multiple disciplines, generating a body of literature that characterizes vaccine hesitant communities, their discourses, and efforts made to alter their attitudes.
The Problem
4
describe themselves as “pro-safe vaccine” (McCarthy). To parallel these alternative terms, as stand-ins for “pro-vaccination attitude,” I use “vaccine confidence,” which refers to positive attitudes toward vaccines, and “vaccine advocacy,” or active efforts to promote vaccine confidence. All four terms pertain to attitudes toward vaccines, but are distinct from “vaccine uptake” and “vaccine refusal,” which refers to the actual behavior of obtaining or rejecting vaccination.
Meta-analyses of the digital discourse of vaccine hesitant parents have elucidated the common motivating factors for vaccine hesitancy, including: distrust toward medical and
scientific institutions, which can manifest in conspiracy theories; emphasis on parental autonomy, authority, and responsibility over physician recommendations; risk-benefit analyses that
emphasize potential vaccine dangers over efficacy in preventing vaccine-preventable diseases; reliance upon alternative medicine and alternative models of healthcare due to perceived failure by conventional medicine; group affiliation with communities that are vaccine hesitant, including religious communities; and inadequate primary care physician support (Kata; Mitra et al. 269; Wolfe and Sharp).
Yet despite their distrust in scientific institutions and disagreement with their vaccination recommendations, vaccine skeptics are not necessarily “unscientific.” Rather, selective and delayed vaccinators tend to be the most well-informed about vaccination and exhibit a preference for the sorts of statistical evidence favored in scientific inquiry rather than anecdotal evidence; by contrast, vaccine acceptors tend to be the least informed (Leask et al. 154). Consequently, while certain vaccine skeptic arguments stem from misinformation, vaccine hesitancy as a whole is unlikely to be reduced simply by providing more information.
5
pre-existing tendencies toward conspiracy ideation, are converted to vaccine hesitant viewpoints (Mitra et al. 277). While this finding points toward populations who need to be particularly targeted by efforts to improve vaccine confidence, the notion of a pre-existing susceptibility also feeds a narrative of inevitability, through which certain people are doomed to be converted regardless of public health and physician efforts. Additionally, meta-analyses have noted that vaccine skeptics’ distrust in authority, insistence upon autonomy, and emphasis of risks over benefits are all characteristic of broader trends toward consumerism in healthcare and
postmodernism in our ideological environment (Kata 1715). Unfortunately, this consistency with broader frameworks makes these beliefs even more resistant to change, since they are bolstered by analogous belief systems in other arenas like politics and perceptions of media.
The complications of postmodernism are exacerbated by the influence of Web 2.0, which refers to the current iteration of the World Wide Web that allows for dynamic interactions between multiple users via comment threads, forums, and social media; such platforms stand in contrast to earlier static web pages that facilitated only a one-way transmission of information from producer to consumer. Web 2.0 has been characterized as a Pandora’s box of vaccine misinformation, allowing free propagation of opinions about vaccine safety unchecked by obligations to accuracy (Kata 1715).
These difficulties are reflected in the poor efficacy of interventions to increase vaccination. According to a 2013 systematic review of such approaches,
6
Nevertheless, some studies have shown that physician intervention does sometimes improve vaccine uptake, resulting in official guidelines issued by bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics regarding how physicians ought to counsel parents with varying degrees of hesitancy toward vaccine acceptance (Edwards et al. e9). Unfortunately, as critics have noted, such measures are difficult to execute in light of busy medical practices (Wells).
In light of the diversity and informedness of the vaccine hesitant community, the efficacy and ideological timeliness of their rhetoric, and the challenges facing interventions, the outlook for promoting vaccine confidence seems rather bleak. However, despite the vast breadth of existing literature, there still exist opportunities for new findings to inform alternative approaches. For instance, little information currently exists about characteristics and impact of layperson vaccine advocacy (Brewer et al., “Understanding and Increasing Vaccination...” 23). However, with the rise of Web 2.0 and an increasing reliance on social media for healthcare advice (Kata 1709), citizen advocates on both sides of the vaccine conversation now possess ample opportunity to influence vaccine opinions. Additionally, existing studies of lay rhetoric tend to perform an aggregate, de-contextualized content analysis. Thus, each remark is removed from the
7 The Potential Solution
In light of these questions, I focused this thesis on the conversation that occurs between vaccine skeptics and vaccine advocates. This approach stands in contrast to existing studies of Web 2.0 vaccine discourse, which treat tweets, comments, and the like as discrete remarks rather than snippets situated within longer back-and-forth exchanges. It is also distinct from efficacy studies or proposed strategies for provider-patient discourse, which assume that vaccine advocates possess the characteristics of professionals, including sophisticated expertise and an obligation to engage in respectful discourse in adherence to guidelines issued by regulatory institutions. Instead, I focus on organic conversation that arises via both the press and Web 2.0, gleaning insights from how comments react to the content and rhetoric of preceding ones in the thread.
To do so, I use the framework of narrative transportation theory, which posits that readers immerse themselves within the stories that they are told. According to Mazzocco et al., “narrative transportation can increase attitudinal yielding either by decreasing the natural response to argue against persuasive communications or by fostering emotional, empathetic connections with characters in the story” (361). Consequently, narratives function rhetorically by drawing in the audience to follow trajectories that bring them from assumptions to conclusions. As such, in this thesis, I trace narratives constructed by vaccine skeptics and advocates as a rhetorical device as they are complicated through disagreement from the opposing side.
Additionally, I attempt to go beyond discerning trends in subject, sentiment, and strategy in order to attempt to capture anomalous moments of productive conversation and better
8
States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Unfortunately, commenters rarely keep a running commentary of the precise state of their vaccine confidence and intent to vaccinate over the course of an Internet debate. Even if they did, positive intention does not always result in actual vaccine uptake (Brewer et al., “Longitudinal Predictors...” 197), and thus the behavioral outcome of digital discourse becomes even more difficult to elucidate.
As such, in subsequent analyses, an operational definition of “productive conversation” draws from the writings of American literary theorist Kenneth Burke and ancient Chinese rhetorician Guiguzi, as well as the principles of improvisational theatre. From Burke comes the notion of identification, which he explains as the phenomenon by which “you persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his” (A Rhetoric of Motives 55). Interpreted more broadly,
identification suggests that persuaders ought to start by finding common ground with their audience. From Guiguzi come the philosophy of open-shut rhetoric, through which he recommends the following:
Carefully examine what people on the other side hold to know truths and untruths about them. Learn about their wishes and desires to understand their ambition and intent. Subtly critique their statements to make them open up with disagreement and seek the true meaning behind it to benefit from their point of view. (Guiguzi 39-40) Again, the impetus is placed on listening the audience and responding appropriately. Finally, from improvisational theory comes the conventional wisdom of responding with “yes, and….” In other words, in order to further the dialogue and keep the conversation alive, one must begin by acknowledging some measure of agreement and then building upon that agreement, rather than merely refuting points of contention. Based upon these three notions, I define “productive conversation” as discourse in which parties acknowledge points of agreement with their
9 The Project
In order to glean insights from this analytic approach, I examine the 2016 Cinema Libre film Vaxxed: from Cover-Up to Catastrophe, along with its related media coverage and Web 2.0 commentary, as a case study. This film alleges that the CDC has attempted to hide data
supporting a link between MMR and autism, per the evidence of a CDC whistleblower. It
presents this evidence in the form of documentary-style interviews with autism parents, scientists, politicians, physicians, and other experts and stakeholders in the purported consequences of the conspiracy. Ultimately, it attempts to persuade the audience to take action by demanding more rigorous vaccine testing and an Congressional hearing to investigate the potential CDC fraud.
Aside from its emphasis on promoting vaccine hesitancy and its relatively recent release, I have selected this film because it represents the directorial debut of Andrew Wakefield, who has become synonymous with his allegations of the MMR-autism link since his 1998 study. This connection has lent the film instantaneous credence and notoriety among vaccine skeptics and advocates, respectively. Beyond Wakefield, the cast also features other high profile vaccine hesitant activists in the MMR-autism iteration of vaccine hesitancy, including producer Del Bigtree, who also produced The Doctors, an American daytime talk show featuring medical advice generally ungrounded by scientific evidence (Korownyk et al. g7346), and interview subject Polly Tommey, who created The Autism File, a British magazine promoting alternative explanations and treatments for autism that fall outside of the scientific mainstream (“About Us”). Furthermore, Vaxxed has enjoyed exposure even outside of more niche vaccine discourse circles through its brief association with the prestigious Tribeca Film Festival. Less than a month prior to its release, the film was selected and then later removed from the line-up within days; these events have been attributed in part to outcry from vaccine advocates over its acceptance to such a renowned platform (Tarkan).
10
nearly two years after the release of this independent film, the hashtag #Vaxxed has been used in nearly 70 vaccine hesitant tweets over the past twenty-four hours. Meanwhile, “the Vaxxed crowd” has been adopted as a pejorative term by the vaccine advocate community toward their vaccine skeptic counterparts (Willingham). As such, particularly among individuals invested in the vaccine conversations, expressing an opinion toward Vaxxed continues to be a widely understood means of taking a side. Consequently, the film holds rhetorical significance as a source of
exigence, or “imperative stimulus” to continue the vaccine conversation (Bitzer 5); this notion derives from Lloyd Bitzer’s factors of rhetorical situations, or “contexts in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse” (1).
The following thesis is organized such that each chapter is devoted to a specific level of conversation initiated by the release of Vaxxed. In doing so, I attempt to trace the rhetorical moves used to support or discredit narratives promoted in the film and evaluate whether such measures generate the types of productive conversation needed to improve vaccine confidence and increase vaccine uptake.
11
enlightenment narrative appeals to a basic desire to be among the enlightened rather than the ignorant.
Chapter Two then discusses how the mainstream press coverage of the film largely attempts to counter these narratives. To question the injustice narrative, journalists disclose the retraction of Wakefield’s report to discredit his claims. To remove emphasis from the conspiracy narrative, articles redirect focus to controversies surrounding the vaccine conversation and the film’s unusual dalliance with Tribeca. To further dismiss the conspiracy narrative, most articles also avoid legitimizing language toward the film and the vaccine conversation. Finally, to question the victimization narrative, one article presents the testimony of an autism father who promotes views of autism as a difference rather than a disability. Collectively I argue that the press attempts to discredit the injustice, conspiracy, and victimization narratives of Vaxxed to varying degrees, but their success is limited by low engagement with the enlightenment metanarrative and efforts to bury rather than confront the conspiracy narrative.
12
counterarguments. Therefore, they present an opportunity to amend future efforts to better promote vaccine confidence.
13 CHAPTER 1
THE VAXXED NARRATIVE
In 1998, British pediatric gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues
published a paper in the Lancet entitled, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.” Within the last paragraph of the discussion section were two sentences that would kindle the newest iteration of the centuries’ old debate about vaccine safety:
We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. (Wakefield et al. 641)
Following this allegation came numerous experiments by other members of the scientific community aimed to further investigate this claim. By 2004, the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the United States Institute of Medicine released its eighth and final report, concluding that existing evidence rejects any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. In the same year, British investigative journalist Brian Deer published the first installment in his series of reports in The Times that revealed undisclosed conflicts of interest by Wakefield in association with his 1998 Lancet publication. Specifically, his study was partially funded by prosecutors in an anti-MMR legal case. The reports also indicated fraudulent manipulations of data. Deer’s
publications, which continued through 2012, later led to the partial then full retraction of the paper by the Lancet and Wakefield’s removal from the British medical register by 2010 (Boseley).
14
fraud by CDC scientists including himself who investigated the safety of the MMR vaccine (Hooker). The CDC had attributed the small observed linkage between MMR and autism to an artifact of the data set, stating that early vaccination is slightly more common among autistic children because they are required to be vaccinated for special education programs (DeStefano et al. 264). Nevertheless, Thompson would be dubbed the “CDC whistleblower,” which
subsequently became a rallying cry among vaccine skeptics and activists (DiResta and Lotan). On April 1st, 2016, the film Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, which details the story of the CDC whistleblower and attempts to present a case for conspiracy and fraud, was first released at the Angelika Film Center in New York City (Ryzik, “Anti-Vaccine Film…” A14). The ostensible documentary was directed by Wakefield and produced by journalist Del Bigtree. It features phone recordings and emails from Thompson, the former of which were obtained without his consent, along with testimonies from autism parents, psychologists, scientists, politicians, and physicians advocating for refusal of the MMR vaccine due to its purported association with the onset of autism. Since its release, the film has risen to prominence among vaccine skeptics whose concerns primarily relate to issues of vaccine safety and efficacy. Among vaccine advocates, “the
15
becomes a point of contention upon which future vaccine skeptic arguments and vaccine advocate counter-arguments will build, as explored in later chapters.
A Claim of Conspiracy
The primary message of the film centers around an accusation of conspiracy. Specifically,
Vaxxed alleges that the CDC and a conglomeration of pharmaceutical companies conspired against the public, which includes patients and individual healthcare practitioners alike, to hide a real MMR-autism link in the whistleblower case specifically and to prevent adequate vaccine safety testing in general. This invocation of conspiracy is established through techniques of identification and form.
According to rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke, identification occurs both through the literal act of naming a phenomenon and through accompanying social affiliations that necessarily ally the target in question with certain ingroups and against other outgroups. In other words, to identify something is to give it a label and to note what sorts of things it is and is not. Consider, for example, the act of calling a woman with a stethoscope and a white coat a “doctor.” In doing so, she is issued a label: “doctor.” At the same time, she is situated within existing systems of social relationships, using the label “doctor” to group her with her ingroups: other doctors and, by extension, other healthcare providers. Furthermore, she is grouped away from her outgroups, which include “non-doctors,” such as nurses, and “non-healthcare providers,” such as patients or administrators. As a rhetorical tool, identification can persuade a listener to accept the speaker’s narrative when the speaker situates the protagonist in the listener’s ingroup (de Graaf et al. 802).
Related to identification is the act of scapegoating. As a rhetorical tactic, it acts similarly to identification in that relies upon labels situated within networks of ingroups and outgroups. The critical difference, however, is that while identification emphasizes ingroup ties,
16
principle of division in that its persecutors would alienate from themselves to it their own uncleanliness” (A Grammar of Motives 406).
Meanwhile, Burke also argues that “form is the creation of an appetite in the mind of the auditor, and the adequate satisfying of that appetite” (Counter-Statement 31). For instance, one example of a form is the traffic light pattern, which consistently transitions from red to green to yellow and back to red. Once somebody understands this pattern, or the form of the traffic light, they know what to expect, hence the “creation of an appetite” for the fulfillment of their
expectations. When they see a yellow light, they expect that a red light is coming and make their driving decisions accordingly. At the same time, when form is used rhetorically, they also require an “adequate satisfying of that appetite,” meaning that expectations must be fulfilled for the argument to be accepted. If someone attempted to craft an argument based on an underlying assumption that a light following the pattern red to yellow to green is a traffic light, people would likely be more resistant to their claims because they know that “real” traffic lights do not operate in that manner.
When analyzing the rhetoric of Vaxxed, two concepts of form and identification are closely tied. One specific type of form, the genre, brings about archetypal systems of
identification (and by extension, scapegoating) that are associated with the particular genre. For instance, when someone reads “Little Red Riding Hood,” they know that they are “supposed to” identify with Little Red Riding Hood rather than the Big Bad Wolf because they understand who traditionally make up the ingroups and outgroups of the reader in the context of fairy tales.
17
journey ahead. The institution is the antagonist, “a potentially infinite network [presented] with a plausible explanation of its invisibility” (Jameson 9). The central narrative often concludes with the protagonist foiling the immediate plot of the nefarious institution. However, this victory tends to be tempered by some ominous indication that the conspiracy itself will carry on and re-emerge again someday. As Lynch summarizes, “the enduring message of the conspiracy thriller is that the antagonist is ultimately more enduring than the power of individual agency” (1).
Vaxxed invokes conspiracy even before the film begins; the promotional poster features the title and credit information along with an ominous syringe and a single tagline, “The film they don’t want you to see” (Vaxxed). In this pithy sentence, the audience is situated within a complex network of identification and form. First, the use of “they” establishes and scapegoats the yet unnamed other: an enemy of the viewer, the filmmakers, and their implied “us” that attempts to hide some truth for presumably nefarious purposes. Secondly, by creating this film that “they don’t want you to see,” those involved in the film situate themselves on the viewer’s team as an unveiler of truth. Finally, by choosing a stock phrase of the conspiracy genre, the poster situates
Vaxxed within a larger genre of the conspiracy thriller. In doing so, it uses conspiracy as what Kenneth Burke would consider a “terministic screen,” which is a rhetorical concept based on the notion that “any nomenclature necessarily directs the attention into some channels rather than others” (Language as Symbolic Action 45). Simply put, by using a specific phrase to describe an object or phenomenon, a speaker cues their audience toward one specific interpretation of that object or phenomenon. In this case, by suggesting that Vaxxed is a conspiracy film, the poster tints all allegations with a sense of credibility. Otherwise innocuous events are viewed through this screen as evidence of wrongdoing that are consistent with the conspiracy genre.
18
industry-government-academia complex. This observation is cited as evidence for collusion, since promotion to a higher position in another organization involved in the conspiracy suggests an effort to reaffirm the alliance of these institutions and to reward the professional for keeping their silence. Additionally, Vaxxed presents a memo sent by Frank DeStefano, one of the scientists involved in Thompson’s whistleblower study. The note encourages the other collaborators to keep their heads down and brace themselves for an upcoming investigation. According to the filmmakers’ reading of these pieces of evidence, all signs point toward secrecy.
However, regardless of these claims, the case for conspiracy is not exactly air-tight; certain assumptions must be made by the audience in order for them to believe. In the case of Weldon’s observation of cycling scientists, a limited pool of experienced professionals and opportunities for lateral mobility could just as easily explain the re-shuffling of scientists between their three primary career options as malicious intent to cover up wrongdoing. Regarding the memo, refusal to spark rumors in the press during a potential investigation is sound advice regardless of guilt or innocence. Yet the audience is prompted to make the logical leaps and believe in the conspiracy as a consequence of genre. Because they know the narrative of collusion by mass complexes of authority whose wrongdoing is revealed by a motley crew of outsiders determined to find the truth, viewers suspend their disbelief and buy into the story.
Other elements of conspiracy fiction also come into play. The shadowy figure of whistleblower William Thompson lingers throughout the film without a formal presence among the cast. In lieu of a traditional interview, he is present only through voiceovers collected from snippets of recorded telephone conversations and emails from his correspondence with members of the CDC. It remains unclear whether Thompson truly consented to his inclusion in the film; after all, the calls were recorded without his knowledge or permission. Nevertheless, the inherent dodginess of an absent and singular key witness is smoothed over by naming him a
19
the protagonist yet chooses not to risk too much by exposing his own name. The whistleblower stands alone as the single insider willing to speak the truth, but his identity is more or less irrelevant. Thompson is only important as a way into an otherwise impenetrable institution of authority; as the plucky journalist, producer Del Bigtree is the real star.
An Indictment of Injustice
Intertwined with conspiracy is a narrative of injustice. To ameliorate this transgression,
Vaxxed brings the alleged wrongdoers to a legal court of its own creation. The latter half of the film focuses on two complementary arguments: first, that whistleblowers like Thompson and Wakefield are wrongfully persecuted for exposing the truth, and second, that perpetrators of fraud like the CDC and pharmaceutical companies are wrongfully exonerated of their crimes without investigation. By framing their arguments as components of a legal trial, Vaxxed leads the viewer down a trail of breadcrumbs that attempts to overturn the existing narrative with a conclusion that supports vaccine hesitancy.
The Charges and the Evidence
In modern American society, courts and trials emerge in the popular consciousness as the primary arbitrators of justice. Therefore, it is logical that Vaxxed’s narrative of injustice
20
conclusion; 3) destruction of document by holding “secret meetings behind closed doors” to dispose of evidence of their fraud; 4) obstruction of justice by committing fraud to avoid paying reparations for vaccine injuries and colluding with mainstream media to hush the whistleblower.
Despite the central focus of the film on conspiracy, which is itself grounds for legal prosecution, the filmmakers instead focus the pseudo-investigation on allegations of fraud. The choice to pursue a charge with fewer associations with paranoia lends legitimacy to the claims of wrongdoing, even among moderates who may not identify themselves as "conspiracy theorists." Additionally, "fraud" carries both scientific and legal connotations, rather than merely the latter. Because the rhetoric of science casts the discipline as an unbiased pursuit of objective truth, fraud becomes a violation of the concept of science because it is a manipulation of truth in order to fulfill a selfish agenda. As a result, within this particular arena, fraud is a more plausible yet also a more egregious crime. In the case presented in the film, vaccine hesitant parents and activists are cast as plaintiffs who bring forth charges against the producers and testers of vaccines, while mainstream media and the scientific community are collectively the judicial system that has failed them by dismissing their concerns rather than calling them to provide their body of evidence. Consequently, the trial metaphor allows Wakefield and his compatriots to create a new court in which they present the evidence on their own terms to a receptive judge and jury in the public viewership. It acts as their opportunity to press charges and present evidence that existing organizations of governance and mainstream channels to the public have simply dismissed.
The Direct Examination
21
California’s Disneyland that was “all basically because of the anti-vaccination movement,” despite overwhelming evidence toward the safety of vaccines according to the reliable authority of the CDC (Vaxxed). In doing so, it establishes that this narrative is the one championed
pervasively by mainstream media. Next, a man types a letter as he narrates the words that appear on the screen: “I have waited a long time to tell my story and I want to tell it truthfully” (Vaxxed). While this opening sequence implies a hidden message absent from major news channels, Vaxxed
does not outright accuse them of deliberately refusing to publicize the whistleblower story until later in the film. In that segment, Bigtree explains that Wakefield and Hooker eventually released a joint statement about the CDC whistleblower. However, to his bewilderment and outrage, mainstream news sources simply ignored the story. The silence signified to him a deliberate collusion between news networks and pharmaceutical companies to hide the truth.
Wakefield's story also presents a point of contention between the mainstream and vaccine skeptic narratives. As director and cast member, Wakefield uses the film as a platform to address perceived misconceptions about his motivations and assertions. Most notably, he
emphasizes that he is not "anti-vaccine," nor did he initially claim to prove a link between MMR and autism; rather, he merely suggested a potential causative relationship and therefore urged caution by administering the single vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella rather than the combined version. By fleshing out the story of his discovery and allowing him to claim a more moderate opinion, Vaxxed makes a case for the ethos of Wakefield, supporting the credibility of one of the most prominent figures of the vaccine hesitant cause.
However, in creating a favorable image of Wakefield, the film also excludes major missteps in Wakefield's career history in favor of correcting the nuances of his
mischaracterization by vaccine advocates. As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter,
Wakefield’s medical license was revoked six years before the release of Vaxxed after undisclosed funding and data manipulation were uncovered and reported by journalist Brian Deer.
22
in the film. Thus, while capturing the untold narrative of an alleged victim to defamation and scapegoating by mass media, Vaxxed also sidesteps any discussion of potentially rightful blame. Nevertheless, the juxtapositions illustrate the alternative narrative that is championed in this film, standing against powerful and prevalent voices that perpetuate the mainstream narrative. In doing so, the film appeals to the justice of focusing on the anti-MMR and anti-CDC viewpoint since the opposing view is already widely and allegedly deliberately represented as the only side of the story in the media at large. The vaccine hesitant creators use Vaxxed as an opportunity to express frustration that their opinion has not been offered its due exposure and investigation. The final segment of the film acts as a call to action, and features the key players presented in the earlier in the film pleading for William Thompson to be subpoenaed in a formalized trial to investigate potential CDC wrongdoing. In a series of back-to-back documentary-style interview responses, autism parent and whistleblower contact Brian Hooker, family physician and newly converted vaccine skeptic Dr. Rachael Ross, and vaccine hesitant congressman David Weldon respectively make the following remarks: “Bill Thompson wants to be subpoenaed by Congress”; “Absolutely William Thompson needs to go before Congress. He needs to go before the whole nation.
Everybody needs to see what he has to say”; “[Thompson] needs to be deposed in front of a committee in Congress.”
Through their repeated plea for a highly public trial, they frame their eagerness for publicity to bolster their ethos as an entity with nothing to hide and a willingness to go to the platforms traditionally occupied by vaccine advocates to further their cause. By contrast, the second-to-last line preceding the closing credits states that the CDC scientists involved in the study were invited to interview but declined to do so, implying guilt because their lack of
openness suggests that they have something to hide. By exploiting the frame and form of the legal trial, secrecy is easily cast as evidence of guilt since court cases require evidence obtained
23
The Mistrial
Although the second half of the film is largely spent exploring the four exhibits of
evidence, it nevertheless splices in related clips that bolster the central claim of CDC wrongdoing. One of such clips is a cartoon that describes “Vaccine Court,” a subdivision of the U.S. Claims Court established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that evaluates parental claims of injuries caused by vaccines and dispenses compensation accordingly (Vaxxed; LaRussa). The format of the segment is itself a rhetorical tactic: by using a visual medium associated with children, it draws upon the ethos of truthfulness in simplicity and the pathos of children in distress. The no-frills version of the story ostensibly cuts out distracting elevated language that distorts the truth; therefore, its arguments can be taken at face value.
In this segment, Vaxxed claims that the 1986 legislation "shields drug companies from liability for injuries and deaths caused by the vaccines they manufacture" due to pharmaceutical lobbying. By using the language of liability and lobbying, two claims of injustice are implicitly asserted. Not only are these corporations evading rightful punishment for their misdeeds, they do so as a result of a practice that represents unregulated corruption. Money passes from wealthy interest groups to officials elected by the people in order to influence them to act against the interests of the people, grating against American conceptions of rightful democracy.
The outcomes of this collusion are summarized in two “shocking facts”:
24
however, the viewer gains another reason to demand justice. Not only are they potential victims, they are already actual victims because they are literally paying the price of unsafe vaccines while pharmaceutical companies escape unscathed, a notion that is further explored in the next section.
The Closing Statement
The final segment of Vaxxed is a call to action. Specifically, four demands are listed, all of which pertain to attempts to restore the violations of justice as described earlier in the film. The demands are as follows:
1) That Congress subpoena Dr. William Thompson and investigate the CDC fraud. 2) That Congress repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and hold manufacturers liable for injury caused by their vaccines.
3) That the single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines be made available immediately.
4) That all vaccines be classified as pharmaceutical drugs and tested accordingly. The first two of these demands directly address the two primary issues of injustice presented in Vaxxed: undue sanctions against those who unmask the conspiracy and inadequate punishment for those who perpetuate it. The former demands for Thompson’s allegations to be given a platform for serious investigation while the latter demands that the “rightful parties” receive due punishment for the production of allegedly risky vaccines. The final demand is also a relatively straight-forward appeal to justice: it appeals to a common-sense demand for vaccines to be classified and tested like any other analogous product in the industry. That they are not
currently evaluated as such appears to be an unjustified double standard, and ought to be remedied in order to restore fair practice.
25
vaccines. Consequently, the third demand gestures toward without making an outright demand for reparations to Wakefield (which would appear self-serving and therefore less legitimate given his status as interview subject and director) by simply calling for a sort of intellectual reparation. Even if his career is not returned to its previous trajectory, his new role as martyr is solidified when policy reflects the very claims that led to his fall from grace.
A Verdict of Victimization
The argument for injustice inherently brings about a claim of victimization, the third narrative presented in this film. Injustice fundamentally occurs when the costs and benefits of an action are shouldered and received to different degrees by different parties, and the party that disproportionately takes on cost rather than benefit can be construed as the victim. Vaxxed
therefore establishes the victims of the conspiracy and injustice created through the alleged CDC cover-up. In particular, three parties are identified as victims: autistic children, their families, and society at large. Autistic children are framed as victims of a complex that forces them to receive dangerous vaccines. Their families suffer because they must endure the emotional traumas associated with raising a child with the condition. Finally, society at large shoulders the burden of financially and socially supporting autistic children, who are depicted as a needless drain to the resources that are otherwise available and plentiful for non-autistic children.
Autistic Children
26
scream in distress. The cries continue to echo even as the scene fades to black, cuing to the persistence of their affliction and drawing upon the pathos of an aversion to children in pain.
Furthermore, even normal childhood events are framed as evidence of decline in an effort to create pity for the autistic child. Nurse Jeanna Reed claims that her son had been walking and running only to regress from this developmental milestone following his MMR vaccine. Her testimony accompanies video footage of her toddler attempting to run only to fall down over and over again. Out of context, such footage is fairly innocuous: that small children fall and fall often prior to the age of two is hardly a newsworthy observation, particularly because the
recommended age for the MMR vaccine per the CDC vaccination schedule almost perfectly coincides with typical age for walking as a developmental milestone (“Recommended
Immunization Schedule...”; “Important Milestones...”). However, by presenting the footage with the narrative of decline, the audience is perceptually primed to reframe the trial and error of learning a new motor skill as visual evidence of vaccine danger.
Furthermore, the rhetoric of science is co-opted to further establish a chain of causality between MMR and autism through the Ealey twins, a pair of African American teenagers whose mother, Sheila, is interviewed as part of the film. While Sheila’s narrative begins by following the pattern of happy, energetic child to sad, despondent child following MMR (in this case, a double dose of the first vaccine in the sequence), this testimony further juxtaposes the autistic Temple and his non-autistic twin sister, Lucinda, showing the former watching Blue’s Clues next to his mother during her interview while the latter performs a virtuosic classical piano piece in the background. In doing so, this example harkens to scientific twin studies, which are particularly favored because they control for genetic and environmental differences, thereby isolating a single point of divergence to establish causality. By generating an illusion of scientific rigor, the film borrows the ethos of science to cast MMR as the critical difference.
27
and hopeless disasters who fail to achieve developmental milestones as good, normal children ought to. Consequently, they are only regarded through the lens of their disabilities (or different abilities) and are leveraged purely as rhetorical tools rather than regarded as full persons with merits and agency. Such a characterization is consistent with Melanie Yergeau’s notion of the difference between “autism-as-modifier and autistic-as-modifier,” whereby she argues that the former, which is more commonly represented, “relates to broader discourse on autism that is typically authored by nonautistic people, whereas the latter imparts that which is autistically created” (2). Thus, even beyond this film, narratives and other works pertaining to the autistic experience tend to be “autism narratives” written by nonautistic people with a vested interest in autism rather than “autistic narratives” written by autistic people themselves. In the case of
Vaxxed, the reduced agency of this population to tell autistic rather than autism stories is further compounded by the power dynamics of their identities as both "autistic" and "children," receiving a dual disadvantage at this intersection of disability and youth.
Autism Families
28
Similarly, each subsequent family begins with the expectation of a perfect child to complete their perfect family. Following the vaccine, they lose their promised child and are cheated of their destiny. The diagnosis and the family's subsequent experience with their autistic child is framed as a cautionary tale. Most notably, Tommey claims that they are sharing their message because “[their] kid's already damaged,” establishing a unique threefold ethos (Vaxxed). Firstly, as a parent of an autistic child, she possesses experiential knowledge of the narrative of decline as seen through her own eyes. Secondly, in a film that seeks to establish everyone as a potential victim, this statement removes the speaker from this risk pool. She has no stake in lying to protect herself or her interests because she is already a victim, so she must be telling the truth. Finally, her child’s illness is established as a moment of exigence to warn others and to protect them from the same pain; therefore, she must be working in the interest of her audience. The viewer is therefore drawn to identify with Tommey through her emotional plea and distressing experience, both of which represent their own possible future in a world where the alleged truth about vaccines is kept in the dark.
29
Society at Large
Finally, society is constructed as a tertiary victim that is nevertheless profoundly impacted by the alleged MMR-autism association. This form of victimization begins with language of autism as an epidemic, thereby framing autism as a population rather than simply individual health problem. To support this claim, Vaxxed presents an MIT scientist who presents alarming projections that by the year 2032, 50% of children and 80% of boys will be diagnosed with autism in the United States. Although Stephanie Seneff is a computer scientist at MIT with only undergraduate training in biology, the film nevertheless calls upon the ethos of the scientist and of her prestigious institution, allowing the viewer to presume authority. This logical leap is facilitated by low public awareness of the specificity and limitations of individual scientists and fields, which is in turn partially due to the popular entertainment notion of the "omnidisciplinary scientist" as coined by the user-generated trope catalogue TVTropes. Despite the relatively niche knowledge of real world scientists, this archetypal figure notoriously addresses all scientifically-related matters of inquiry regardless of their actual field of expertise (“Omnidisciplinary
Scientist”). To further bolster the legitimacy of the statistic, Vaxxed also supplies animated graphs to illustrate an alarming yet ostensibly logical extrapolation of existing data, drawing upon the visual rhetoric of a trend line extending beyond the existing axes as evidence for imminent disaster. Because of this predicted proportion, Seneff argues that “healthy” children will be neglected as energy and resources of their educators are diverted toward the children with special needs instead. In a similar appeal toward resource allocation, Congressman Dan Burton
emphasizes the financial costs associated with supporting an autistic population. Most notably, he argues that an autism epidemic is a particularly pressing concern because the condition is
30
vaccination. If your child escapes the experience unscathed, then they are potentially neglected by an education system and social support networks overburdened by caring for the increased needs of autistic children. And if even you never have children, you will still be victimized by this alleged MMR-induced autism epidemic because everyone pays the taxes to support this population. By identifying victims and identifying the audience with and as victims, Vaxxed
creates stakes and generates fear, propelling their agenda of conversion to and action toward their cause.
Conclusion
31
These three narratives coalesce into a single narrative of enlightenment. By virtue of their very definition, conspiracies are secretive, but according to this narrative, once parents stumble upon this secret, then they come to see the injustice in the punishment of Wakefield and Thompson while allegedly corrupt healthcare institutions face no consequences. They then become righteously indignant because they see how autistic children and autism parents are directly victimized by the autism caused by this conspiracy, and further believe that they are not only potential future victims if their children develop autism, but also already indirect victimized because they participate in a society that must support the needs of its autistic members.
Consequently, Vaxxed carries a strong undercurrent of evangelism, arguing that when rational people are exposed to the truth, they convert to vaccine skepticism as the rightful cause.
Such a trajectory is portrayed by parents and physicians alike who are interviewed in the film. As described previously, The Autism Files founder Polly Tommey claims to have trusted in the authority of health agencies, protesting when her mother warned her against the MMR vaccine, before her eyes were opened to the truth of vaccine dangers with the seizures and later diagnosis of autism in her son Billy. In later scenes, pediatricians Jim Sears and Rachel Ross, both of whom believed in and counseled their patients to adhere to the CDC-recommended vaccine schedule, are presented with the data from the 2004 CDC study. Following their examination, both physicians are shown to be aghast by the associations between MMR and autism that these documents allegedly reveal. Thus, through the narrative of enlightenment, vaccine skeptics are former vaccine advocates who now know better. They represent what Vaxxed
argues that every person ought to become when they inform themselves on the issues. Thus, when any rational individual comes to possess the secret knowledge about the conspiracy, the injustice, and the victimization, they too ought to pin the blame for these wrongdoings squarely on vaccines and those involved in their creation.
32
disguised as a conspiracy thriller documentary, lending legitimacy through ostensible objectivity. Their arguments are furthered by the framing of vaccine hesitancy as the logical conclusion of insider knowledge. After exposure to the secret of the cover-up, the viewer is urged to identify with their fellow insiders and defy the mainstream message of support for vaccines. Consequently, the enlightenment narrative is effective because it situates vaccine hesitancy and refusal as
behaviors indicative of learnedness.
While these narratives are troubling because of their potential for persuading parents away from vaccination, the notable and often shocking portrayal of autism and autistic children with an attitude of immense prejudice and fear is also concerning. The Ealey interviews were filmed with the autistic son watching children’s programs and sitting next to his mother while she explains her remorse that he would never live a fulfilling life as a happy man. Tommey justifies her crusade and her credibility by asserting that her sole purpose is to prevent the suffering of other parents because her “kid’s already damaged” (Vaxxed). Most disturbingly, Republican Congressman Burton argues that autism is particularly costly because the children affected must be sustained by taxpayer money since autism is “not like a lot of diseases where they get infected and they drop dead” (Vaxxed). Despite extensive testimony by families of autistic children, who perceive themselves to be victims of an unfair exchange of their perfect, “undamaged” child with one who is autistic, no autistic person is ever interviewed. Because of this missing voice, Vaxxed
leverages autism as a source of fear-mongering without considering the self-perceived quality of life or the implications of such disparaging arguments for autistic people. Such potentially damaging arguments are not exclusive to vaccine skeptics, a phenomenon that will be discussed in chapter three.
Yet despite the problems that it presents for vaccine confidence, the rhetoric of Vaxxed
33
dismissive toward vaccine hesitancy and its associated concerns. By contrast, vaccine skeptics do not necessarily disdain vaccine proponents; rather, aside from parties perceived actively involved in fraud, the latter are considered ignorant potential converts. Testimonies like those of Tommey, Sears, and Ross illustrate that even key vaccine hesitant figures began as vaccine advocates who were brought out of the proverbial cave to champion the true cause. Secondly, contrary to more traditional conceptualizations of ingroup and outgroup psychology, which include perceptions of outgroup homogeneity (Mullen and Hu 233), Vaxxed provides evidence that vaccine hesitant individuals like the creators of this film possess a nuanced perception of pro-vaccinators, dividing them between the colluders and the ignorant even among parties involved in the healthcare system. The film clearly illustrates that vaccine hesitancy can be partially attributed to distrust in the colluders: institutions of authority like the CDC and pharmaceutical companies. However, not all purveyors of healthcare are vilified; individual practitioners are perceived as equal victims of duplicitous lobbying by a conspiracy to hide vaccine dangers. Doctors, nurses, and other such providers are cast as misguided but trustworthy and fundamentally interested in children’s well-being. This revelation points toward implications for endeavors to correct deleterious vaccine hesitant attitudes, which are further explored in the final chapter.
34 CHAPTER 2
THE PRESS RESPONSE
Even before its debut, Vaxxed was generating buzz in even major newspapers for its role at the center of a minor debacle in the film industry. On March 21, 2016, The New York Times
announced that Vaxxed was to be premiered at the illustrious Tribeca Film Festival (Belluck and Ryzik A11). Four days later, Robert De Niro, award-winning actor and co-founder of the festival, issued a statement via Facebook supporting the decision to screen this film at Tribeca as follows:
[My wife] and I have a child with autism...and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined. In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening
VAXXED. (Belluck and Ryzik A11)
However, by the next day, Vaxxed was removed from the Tribeca line-up, partly due to enormous outrage both by the medical and scientific communities and by layperson vaccine advocates (Welch). To explain this rapid reversal, De Niro issued a second statement:
35
Both the initial announcement and its rapid subsequent reversal were extensively covered by major news outlets; The New York Times, for example, issued a series of four articles over the span of a single week discussing each turn of events up until the Angelika Film Center premiere on April 1 (Brodwin). The third in this series features an interview of Philippe Diaz, French producer and founder of Cinema Libre, the California-based company that acquired Vaxxed for distribution and submitted the film to Tribeca in the first place (Ryzik, “Pulled From Festival…” C3; McNary). Diaz claimed that Cinema Libre’s intentions in acquiring the film stem from an interest in a potential CDC conspiracy and hopes for spurring further investigation via
Congressional hearing. In his own words, “Ultimately, the idea of a government cover-up seemed a convincingly meaty topic for a film” (Ryzik, “Pulled From Festival…” C3).
The press, however, disagreed in their primary point of interest. The initial coverage of
Vaxxed prior to its release set the tone for subsequent articles surrounding the film; the press latched onto controversy, albeit not the one that the creators of Vaxxed had ostensibly intended to generate. The tumultuous happenings surrounding the film became a more consistent feature than those it attempts to bring to the people’s court.
36
The first two articles describe the screening and distribution of Vaxxed. Melena Ryzik of
TheNew York Times focuses on its premiere at the Angelika Film Center in Manhattan, framing the screening event in the context of the Tribeca Film Festival controversy and Wakefield’s tumultuous professional history and describing reactions from both viewers and reviewers (“Anti-Vaccine Film…” A14). It also discusses Thompson’s relatively low degree of involvement in the film, then ends by discussing Cinema Libre’s other projects, including an earlier documentary about the producer’s autistic son that denounced the relationship between autism and vaccines. By contrast, Tatiana Siegel’s The Hollywood Reporter piece announces a secret screening of the film at the prestigious French Cannes Film Festival nearly two months after the Angelika
premiere. While the article also nods to the Tribeca controversy and the discredited Lancet study, it focuses primarily on the business prospects of Vaxxed, describing distribution plans outside of North America, particularly in the European market, gross earnings, and the subsequent
acquisition of another film questioning vaccine safety by Cinema Libre. In both cases, little evidence indicates that either author has actually seen the film; for instance, Ryzik quotes the producer in noting that William Thompson does not appear in the footage of the film rather than independently making the claim.
The next two articles were written to debunk myths and supply outside facts omitted from the film. In The Washington Post, Ariana Eunjung Cha discusses seven facts and events that are excluded from but provide context for the arguments presented in Vaxxed. These include the details of the Lancet retraction, the Tribeca controversy, Thompson’s involvement, scientific consensus regarding causes and trends in diagnosis of autism, and reviewer opinions. The Guardian’s Jessica Glenza provides an edited transcript of her interview with pediatrician Dr.
Philip LaRussa, in which he discusses Wakefield's history and its absence from Vaxxed, his own sympathy toward parental frustrations regarding the unclear causes of autism, the
37
myriad other studies that verify the safety of vaccines, regardless of how the CDC addresses Thompson’s situation.
The remaining two articles are reviews. The Hollywood Reporter invited Dr. Paul Offit, pediatrician and outspoken critic of anti-vaccine efforts, to write a scathing review of not only
Vaxxed but also its director. He begins by detailing the infamous Lancet article and the subsequent fall out. Next, he questions the logic of the purported MMR-autism link and the alleged CDC wrongdoing. Finally, he describes Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist and
fearmonger, portraying Vaxxed as the work of a delusional man. Eric Kohn’s review in IndieWire, which was quoted in Ryzik’s piece, similarly decries both Vaxxed and Wakefield, claiming the former uses dramatic storytelling to obfuscate an absence of “real science” and the latter merely leverages the film as an opportunity to further his anti-vaccine agenda. He ends by grading
Vaxxed with a “D.”
However, despite the specific differences in genre, all six articles manipulate the narratives presented in the original film, typically refuting them but occasionally also offering support. In order to discredit the injustice narrative, articles deliberately highlight Wakefield’s conveniently excluded wrongdoings. To draw attention away from the conspiracy narrative, the press emphasizes the scandal associated with the broader vaccine conversation and the film’s brief appearance in the Tribeca line-up. Furthermore, although concluding remarks impart mixed messages regarding the validity of vaccine concerns, most articles also attempt to dismiss the relevance of the conspiracy narrative by avoiding the use of legitimizing language toward the film and the vaccine conversation. Finally, by featuring the voice of an autism parent who does not bemoan his child’s condition, one article works to question the victimization narrative by presenting an alternative perspective on autism. Thus, I argue that the press coverage of Vaxxed
38
low reliance upon logos-driven arguments, which present a key potential mode of disrupting the enlightenment metanarrative.
The Question of Credentials: Reframing Allegations of Injustice
In light of the apparent uncertainty that shrouds the film, the journalists placed an emphasis on establishing credentials, or a lack thereof, for each agent who participates in the conversation. In both cases in which a physician is asked to contribute to the article, the piece either begins or ends with a stand-alone description of their field of expertise. For instance, the LaRussa interview is preceded by a two sentence description that provides his position as a professor of pediatrics at the Columbia University Medical Center, his expertise as an immunization specialist, and his experience as a member of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (LaRussa). Beyond conveying credibility of their own writers and informants, the press also presents outside context to question the credibility of the figures in the film. As such,
ethos of the claimant becomes a primary source of evidence for validity of the claim. Among the individuals quoted in Vaxxed, journalists largely focus upon scrutinizing Wakefield and Thompson. While the loss of Wakefield’s medical license and the retraction of his article are both conveniently excluded from Vaxxed, journalists and review writers waste no time in remarking upon both strikes against the reliability of Wakefield as director of the film and champion of the MMR-autism narrative. Offit’s review in particular contains a detailed account of Wakefield’s ethical missteps:
39
Meanwhile, in the case of Thompson, several articles note that he is present only through “phone conversations [he] had with another researcher who secretly recorded the calls” and excerpts of emails to his colleagues (Cha). The New York Times reports that “Thompson does not appear in person in the film, nor has he seen it” (Ryzik). As such, although championed as a whistleblower, Thompson is hardly doing much of the whistle blowing; rather, it is done for him by the producers of Vaxxed.
In doing so, to continue the trial metaphor established in the film, the press acts to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the prosecution. They supply the outside context of
Wakefield’s history and Thompson’s lack of commitment to the cause to suggest to their readers, the jury, that the evidence presented by these two witnesses is unreliable. Moreover, they suggest that the prosecution is attempting to manipulate the jury by presenting a partial truth that
deliberately excludes Wakefield’s contentious background. In response to a narrative that attempts to establish perceptions of injustice in the audience, these articles present evidence that justice has indeed been served.
The Series of Scandals: Burying the Conspiracy Narrative
As discussed in the previous chapter, the ostensible central narrative of Vaxxed is one about an alleged cover-up by the CDC. In its acquisition and following press release, Cinema Libre homed in on this claim, declaring an interest in the film as a revelation of potential governmental wrongdoing. Nevertheless, this purported fraud is only briefly mentioned in most of the articles sampled. If anything, they tend to comment on Thompson’s notable absence as a direct cast member in the film, despite his centrality to the whistleblower narrative.
40
consistency with mainstream scientific understandings. Additionally, all but one of the articles analyzed further established a secondary controversy stemming from the larger vaccine debate: its acceptance into the Tribeca Film Festival line-up and the subsequent reversal of this decision.
By emphasizing these two controversies, the press highlights the film’s two greatest claims to fame among the mainstream audience. The first is its relation to vaccine hesitancy, an unpopular but prominent opinion that periodically becomes salient in the media with each vaccine-preventable disease outbreak. Furthermore, its transient presence in Tribeca not only associates the film with a renowned film festival but also raises questions about the role of public outcry in generating its lineups and whether the incident constitutes evidence of censorship. By contrast, the more extreme accusations of conspiracy are carefully skirted.
The likely net effect of these choices on public perceptions of vaccine safety is unclear. By excluding the conspiracy narrative, this claim is implicitly deemed so unreasonable that it is unworthy of further examination. However, the remaining arguments regarding potential dangers of the MMR vaccine become more credible when they are no longer associated with the
connotations of paranoia from the government cover-up accusation. Furthermore, by highlighting omitted context, these articles provide evidence that discredits central claims regarding purported dangers of the MMR vaccine. However, their very existence nevertheless increases the salience of the film and by association, concerns about vaccine safety, in the public consciousness. Increased references to the minority opinion create the impression that something of concern ought to be debated. The mere association with Tribeca improves the reputability of the film as something worth seeing, regardless of whether it was later pulled for failing to “further the [hoped-for] discussion” (Goodman A17).
41
overlooked or even intentionally buried. As one theatregoer remarks, “It makes me want to see it all the more, if the scientific community is that scared” (Ryzik, “Anti-Vaccine Film…” A14).
The Quiet Claims: A Motion to Dismiss
Because of expectations for objectivity in the press, these accusations are often suggested rather than directly stated. Nevertheless, across the articles surveyed, press attitudes toward
Vaxxed and its claims clearly lean negative. In cases of both reviews and the interview, which fall within genres that allow and even encourage the expression of subjective opinions and
evaluations, strong, direct statements were made to verbally eviscerate the work. Of note, Offit’s review concludes with a note of derision, comparing those who appreciate the film to “people who believe that President Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, that the moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood soundstage and that an intergalactic board of elves and fairies are trying to get the IRS out of Puerto Rico.”
In the more traditionally journalistic articles, which are limited by an ostensible
adherence to professional standards of objectivity, evaluative judgments are nevertheless quietly conveyed. For example, questions regarding the validity of claims made by Vaxxed and by vaccine skeptics in general were covertly raised by the specific terms selected to characterize the film and the conversation surrounding its central premise. For instance, “debate” was used only once to describe the vaccine conversation. Similarly, articles tend to use the terms “film” or “movie” to describe Vaxxed rather than “documentary.” The latter is used only twice, one of which was part of an attempt to build a strawman argument against the film. The act of foregoing terms such as “debate” and “documentary” reflects implicit efforts to undermining the legitimacy of vaccine skeptic arguments and of Vaxxed’s central accusations.
