Michael Clifford: Danger of misinformation thriving on Covid-19 vaccine 

The public must be brought on board and treated as adults or a vacuum can easily open up in which misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines will thrive, says Michael Clifford

An opinion poll in October commissioned by RTÉ showed that 32% of those polled would not take the vaccine. 

The wonder of science is up in bright lights at the moment.

Within a year of the discovery of a fatal strain of coronavirus, vaccines have been discovered, tested and, to the greatest extent, passed for efficacy and safety. This is unprecedented. 

Normally, it might be expected to take years and even decades to arrive at this point in tackling a serious condition. Now the big issue will be the rollout and particularly the take-up of the vaccine.

An opinion poll in October commissioned by RTÉ showed that 32% of those polled would not take the vaccine. 

The Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association has done research indicating that 32% said they were unsure whether they’d take it while 12% said they definitely wouldn’t.

There is already opposition to the vaccine from various “anti-vax” groups online. 

However, it is also likely that there will be people opposed to it purely on the basis of fears or their perceived experience with vaccines.

In this respect the pro-active dissemination of information about the Covid-19 vaccines is vital. 

The public must be brought on board and treated as adults or a vacuum can easily open up in which misinformation thrives.

The experience in recent years with the HPV vaccine is instructive. The vaccine is considered – by overwhelming medical and scientific opinion – to be vital in reducing the chances of contracting cervical cancer. 

A campaign of vaccination was introduced for young teenage girls in 2010. Around five years ago, opposition gathered around the theory that it had led to severe long-term illness among up to 600 girls. 

All had developed their illness around the time they had received the vaccine. Their families were, for the greater part, convinced that the vaccine was to blame. 

There was absolutely no scientific evidence to back up this theory, but the concerns were genuine. A campaign of opposition was launched and quickly became effective. 

In case you want to know risk of severe allergic reaction from routine vaccines, I worked with the ⁦@nytimes⁩ to show this graphically with 3 vaccines, flu and HPV (1-2 per million), MMR (3-4 per million), in the range of being struck by lightning https://t.co/oH8P0bD3vr

— Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD DSc(hon) (@PeterHotez) December 9, 2020

In the Dáil, a series of questions were tabled that, even by their framing, called into question the safety of the HPV vaccine.

For instance, on 17 May, 2016, Fianna Fáil TD Eamon Scanlon asked the minister for health “why the Health Service Executive has not put provisions in place to cater for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination casualties given that the executive has acknowledged that no vaccine is 100% safe and the manufacturer clearly outlines more than 25 possible side effects in its patient information leaflet.” 

This was one of three related questions on the vaccine tabled that day by Deputy Scanlon.

Minister Simon Harris’s reply included the background to the campaign opposed to the vaccine.

“I am aware of claims of an association between HPV vaccination and a number of conditions experienced by a group of young women. 

"An illness that occurs around the time a vaccine is given and is already known to be common in adolescence does not imply the vaccine caused the problem.

As there is no scientific evidence that the vaccine causes long-term illnesses, the HPV vaccine cannot be held responsible for these illnesses. 

"It appears that some girls first suffered symptoms around the time they received the HPV vaccine, and understandably some parents have connected the vaccine to their daughter’s condition.” 

Despite this answer, rooted in science, the parliamentary questions kept coming for over a year.

On 20 September 2017, independent TD Michael Healy Rae asked the minister his “views on the recent comments of a person, in which they referred to some of the HPV vaccine campaigns, as acts of emotional terrorism.” 

On 7 November 2017, Fine Gael TD Tony McLoughlin asked the minister if the department of health “will investigate claims that the symptoms of some 650 people who have received the HPV vaccine here fit in with a recently described phenomenon known as autoimmune inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.” 

Just over a week later on 15 November, Fine Gael TD Pat Deering asked the minister “if a connection is being made between the HPV vaccine and the onset of symptoms experienced by 628 women.” 

These are just a sample of parliamentary questions on the subject tabled during this period. 

The tenor of the questions indicates that in each and every case the TD was merely making a representation on behalf of a constituent. But is that good enough in an area that is so vital to public health? 

The campaign fed off these kinds of parliamentary interventions.  By 2017, take-up for the vaccine plummeted from 80% to 50%.

The media also arguably played a role in draining some confidence from the vaccination programme. 

The campaign of opposition generated a lot of copy and airtime in its early stages. 

I was asked to look at the issue by somebody who, while not affected herself, had a genuine concern for others who were convinced their daughters’ ill health was entirely attributable to the vaccine.

The evidence didn’t stack up and I declined to write about the families as to do so might inadvertently give ballast to the campaign. 

I did attend a screening of the controversial film Vaxxed, which centred on opposition to the MMR vaccine but had attracted those in the HPV campaign.

I reported what I saw in a piece culminating in the following paragraphs: “Ultimately, Vaxxed is largely based on conspiracy. Right now, conspiracies are perceived to be everywhere.

“The one at the centre of this film is old, involving the capacity of big pharma to dictate the health, and consequently the life and death, of millions, by exercising power over democratic governments and health professionals everywhere.

“It’s possible, but so far this particular conspiracy lacks a credible body of evidence.” 

Was merely reporting on the film unnecessarily drawing attention to it? That’s the kind of dilemma that the media will be faced with in reporting on the various strands of opposition to the Covid vaccines in the coming months.

The drop off in take-up for the HPV vaccine alarmed public health officials in 2017 and a vigorous public information campaign was launched to tackle it.

Among the elements to the campaign was input from women who had contracted cervical cancer.

By 2019, take-up had risen to around 70%. That outcome demonstrates that buy-in can be achieved when the public is engaged and fully informed about a vaccine.

There will inevitably be bumps along the road of the forthcoming inoculation programme. A pro-active information campaign will be a vital tool in instilling public confidence.

Everybody who operates in the public square, including politicians and media, will also be obliged to tread carefully. 

Democracy demands that questions are asked and answers questioned. 

But the nature of what is at issue in tackling Covid-19 puts a heightened emphasis on tone and context. Let’s be careful out there.