← Quick Find
Lack of consensus on the benefits and theories of vaccination
Some people will reject vaccinations based on unwarranted beliefs. For example, the claim that the body has a ‘natural healing potential’ or that ‘natural’ is always better. This may lead people to believe that suffering a ‘natural’ disease in order to achieve subsequent immunity is preferable to being vaccinated, which is the exact opposite of the actual risks.
Many adherents of ‘alternative medicine’ hold unwarranted beliefs and are sceptical of vaccinations.
Research has shown that these unwarranted beliefs are particularly shaped by ‘cognitive variables’, a psychological term which describes the ways in which people process information.
It is these cognitive variables that separate unwarranted beliefs from conspiracist beliefs, which is primarily influenced by perceived threat and emotional variables.
These cognitive variables include:
This theme implicitly supports unwarranted beliefs by arguing against science. Arguments claim that we must debate the scientific consensus around vaccines.
Controversy or disagreements among scientists, and uncertainties or unknowns are held up as evidence that belief in the scientific process behind vaccines is misplaced.
It is understandable to think that the theories behind vaccination are controversial because scientific knowledge progresses through discussion. This means that scientists will sometimes disagree. It can be difficult to work out what are accepted scientific facts and what is still being debated. Sadly, scientists do not always communicate effectively when they have reached consensus on an issue.
Dialogue between patients and healthcare professionals is most productive if it is guided by empathy, and an opportunity for the patient to affirm the reasons underlying their attitudes and to express understanding for that. That’s why it is important to understand the attitude roots behind people’s overt opinions. To affirm a person’s underlying attitude root does not mean we need to agree with the specifics of their argument. For example, we can acknowledge that:
It is understandable to think that the theories behind vaccination are controversial because scientific knowledge progresses through discussion. This means that scientists will sometimes disagree. It can be difficult to work out what are accepted scientific facts and what is still being debated. Sadly, scientists do not always communicate effectively when they have reached consensus on an issue.
There is now a strong and widespread medical consensus on the benefits and safety of vaccines and how they work because there is ample, replicable evidence from the millions of people worldwide who are vaccinated each year, gathered over more than one hundred years.
There are very good reasons for this confidence in vaccination. Many independent scientists have worked to the highest scientific standards to test their safety and efficacy. This accumulation of evidence in support of the safety and efficacy of vaccinations has established immunological science as a very reliable field of knowledge.